Docstoc
EXCLUSIVE OFFER FOR DOCSTOC USERS
Try the all-new QuickBooks Online for FREE.  No credit card required.

Director Review Closeout Report

Document Sample
Director Review Closeout Report Powered By Docstoc
					                   Issued July 5, 2007




  Final Report


   Director’s
CD-2/3a Review
       of
the NOvA Project



  June 4-6, 2007
Issued July 5, 2007

                             This page intentionally left blank




                      Director’s CD-2/3a Review of the NOvA Project
                                     June 4 - 6, 2007
Page 2 of 78
                                                                                                            Issued July 5, 2007


                                                      Table of Contents

Executive Summary ............................................................................................................ 5
1.0        Introduction ............................................................................................................. 7
2.0        Science .................................................................................................................... 8
3.0        Site and Building (WBS 1/2.1) ............................................................................. 11
4.0        Commodities – Scintillator/Fiber/PVC (WBS 1/2.2, 1/2.3 & 1/2.4) .................... 14
5.0        Extrusion Module Production (WBS 1/2.5).......................................................... 16
6.0        Electronics, Trigger DAQ (WBS 1/2.6 & 1/2.7) .................................................. 20
7.0        Far and Near Detector Assembly (WBS 1/2.8 & 2.9) .......................................... 22
8.0        Accelerator Upgrades (WBS 1/2.0.1 & 1/2.0.2) ................................................... 32
9.0        NuMI Beamline Upgrades (WBS 1/2.0) ............................................................... 38
   9.1       Beamline/TargetModifications ........................................................................... 38
   9.2       Shielding ............................................................................................................. 39
10.0       Cost ....................................................................................................................... 40
11.0       Schedule ................................................................................................................ 44
12.0       Project Management (WBS 1.9 & 2.10) ............................................................... 48
13.0       Charge Questions .................................................................................................. 51
Appendices ........................................................................................................................ 54
   Cost Estimates............................................................................................................... 55
   Charge ........................................................................................................................... 57
   Agenda .......................................................................................................................... 61
   Report Outline and Reviewer Writing Assignments .................................................... 63
   Reviewer Assignments for Breakout Sessions ............................................................. 65
   Reviewers’ Contact Information ................................................................................... 66
   Participant List .............................................................................................................. 68
   Table of Recommendations .......................................................................................... 71




                                     Director’s CD-2/3a Review of the NOvA Project
                                                    June 4 - 6, 2007

                                                                                                                           Page 3 of 78
Issued July 5, 2007

                             This page intentionally left blank




                      Director’s CD-2/3a Review of the NOvA Project
                                     June 4 - 6, 2007
Page 4 of 78
                                                                         Issued July 5, 2007


Executive Summary
Technical
The NOvA collaboration has prepared a draft Technical Design Report (TDR), estimated
cost, and schedule for an 18 kton neutrino detector to be located in Northern Minnesota
that will detect the appearance of electron neutrinos in a beam from an upgraded NuMI
muon neutrino source at a power level of ~700 kW at Fermilab. The draft TDR is a quite
comprehensive document describing an ~30% design of the NOvA detector and the
proposed accelerator and NuMI upgrades (ANU).

A well-advanced design for the Far Detector Building has been prepared. The DOE is
entering into a Cooperative Agreement with the University of Minnesota (UMN) to finish
the design and build the building (and operate the facility once it is complete and perform
HEP Research).

A NOvA R&D program is underway to address key technical questions prior to placing
major component procurement contracts.

Cost
The initial roll up in Cobra of the Resource Loaded Schedule (RLS) from Open Plan for
the detailed cost estimate of NOvA results in a total project cost (TPC) of $297.4M
including a contingency of 31% overall. The present cost estimate for the 18 kton scope
seems generally to have quite a sound basis, but needs to be scrubbed carefully by the
NOvA team to identify errors, duplications, and other problems.

The Site and Building cost increased by 24% (to $57.M) from CD-1 (with a 25 kton
detector). The increases were due to increased HVAC, crane, and electrical utility
capacity (all driven by technical requirements, eg the detector plane bonding glue) and
University of Minnesota (UMN) Project Management support.

Modest increases in the detector cost were due to Electronics Production, Near Detector
Assembly, and Project Management. There was a significant decrease in the estimate for
PVC Extrusions.

The ANU costs have increased ~10% since the Super NuMI (SNuMI) Director’s Review.

Schedule
The NOvA schedule shows initial data taking beginning with the 1st super block in
September 2011 and an April 2013 completion. The ~6000 line construction schedule in
Open Plan has been resource loaded with logic included and yields a critical path that
includes the Far Detector Building, block pivoter, and detector module assembly. The
ANU upgrades will be finished in time to meet the NOvA scheduled beam requirements.

The far detector assembly schedule (the long pole in the tent) extending over four years is
thought to be reasonable. A 100% contingency on labor for this task is included to allow
double shifting if needed to maintain the schedule. The schedule shows detector site and
building final design beginning late this fiscal year, road work at the beginning of Spring
                         Director’s CD-2/3a Review of the NOvA Project
                                        June 4 - 6, 2007

                                                                                  Page 5 of 78
Issued July 5, 2007


2008, and excavation and concrete work beginning in the Summer 2008. The CD-3a
request also includes long-lead time detector items and specific ANU component
procurements.

Management
There has been a $260M cap placed on NOvA by the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB). So, the detector size will need to be scaled down to fit under this cap. The
“scrubbing” of the 18 kton cost mentioned above and the descoping will need to be
completed prior to a DOE Lehman CD-2/3a Review. This review is presently scheduled
for July 17-19 (date was moved to August 11-13 shortly after completing the Director’s
review).

A reasonably well staffed (for this stage of the project) NOvA project team is in place
and responsible for accomplishing the TDR and this initial schedule and cost estimate.
They must now accomplish the scrubbing and descoping to achieve a self-consistent
scope, detailed schedule, and sound cost estimate for a $260M NOvA. Rough scaling
calculations indicate this would result in about a 14 kton detector mass.

The Acquisition Strategy has been approved by DOE, but many of the “management
documents” needed for DOE projects at the CD-2/3a stage have been prepared in draft
form, including:

        Project Execution Plan
        Project Management Plan
        Security Vulnerability Assessment Report
        Procurement Plan for NOvA Cost Drivers
        Risk Management Plan
        Integrated Safety Management Program
        Configuration Management Program
        Quality Assurance Program
        Environmental Assessment and
        Environmental Assessment Worksheet.


Some additional work and significant effort will be required to bring this suite of
documents current with the to-be-developed $260M NOvA scope, cost, and schedule.
Finally, a polished (EIR ready) full set of information for the DOE Lehman CD-2/3a
Review will need to be provided ~ 1 week prior to that review on an easily accessible and
user-friendly webpage.




                         Director’s CD-2/3a Review of the NOvA Project
                                        June 4 - 6, 2007
Page 6 of 78
                                                                        Issued July 5, 2007


1.0    Introduction
A Director’s CD-2/3a Review of the NOvA Project was held on June 4-6, 2007. The
charge included a list of topics to be addressed as part of the review. The assessment of
the Review Committee is documented in the body of this report.

Each section in the report is generally organized by Findings, Comments and
Recommendations. Findings are statements of fact that summarize noteworthy
information presented during the review. The Comments are judgment statements about
the facts presented during the review and are based on reviewers’ experience and
expertise. The comments are to be evaluated by the project team and actions taken as
deemed appropriate. Recommendations are statements of actions that should be
addressed by the project team. Progress on the recommendations is to be reported on
during future NOvA Working Group Meetings (WGMs). A response to
recommendation(s) is expected and actions taken will be reported on during future
reviews.

Reference materials for this review are contained in the Appendices. Appendix A is
NOvA’s project cost estimate/contingency spreadsheet and the Review Committee’s
assessment of the cost estimate/contingency spreadsheet documented in the notes. The
Charge for this review is shown in Appendix B. The review was conducted per the
agenda shown in Appendix C. The Reviewer’s assignments are noted in Appendix D and
E, and their contact information is listed in Appendix F. The Review Participants are
listed in Appendix G. Appendix H is a table that contains all the recommendations
included in the body of this report.




                        Director’s CD-2/3a Review of the NOvA Project
                                       June 4 - 6, 2007

                                                                                 Page 7 of 78
Issued July 5, 2007


2.0       Science
Summary

         The proposed detector technology has outstanding background rejection and >
          30% detection efficiency for νe appearance.

         The Near and Far detector configurations are very well optimized to the physics
          goals.

         Concern: The physics sensitivity scales with sqrt(mass*efficiency*time*pot)

         Descoping from 25 kT to 18 kT reduces the physics sensitivity by 22%*,
          reduction to 14 kT reduces the sensitivity by 39%.

(* this factor also includes a reduction in the protons-on-target assumption from 6.5 to 6.0
E20/year.)

Findings
The NOvA experiment is intended to:

         Detect muon-electron neutrino oscillations with sensitivity more than an order of
          magnitude greater than the present experiments. In particular, to measure the
          mixing angle sin^2 (2 theta13) with a sensitivity of 3 sigma at sin^2 (2 theta13) >
          0.01.

         To use the differential effects of passage through matter on neutrinos and anti-
          neutrinos at long oscillation lengths to determine the mass hierarchy for neutrino
          species.

         To perform precision measurements of the 'atmospheric' neutrino mixing by
          detecting the disappearance of muon neutrinos at a far detector.

      To do this requires:

         A high intensity neutrino and anti-neutrino beam, with beam energy spread
          comparable to the energy modulation expected in neutrino oscillations.

         A high mass neutrino detector located at

          o the first maximum in the sin^2 (Delta M_23^2 L/E) oscillation peak for
            'atmospheric' neutrinos

          o with as much matter between the beam origin and the detector as possible to
            maximize the matter effects.

         The ability to distinguish muon->electron neutrino interactions from

                             Director’s CD-2/3a Review of the NOvA Project
                                            June 4 - 6, 2007
Page 8 of 78
                                                                       Issued July 5, 2007


      o fake electron neutrino signatures from neutral current events and cosmic ray
        interactions and

      o contamination by electron neutrinos in the muon beam. This can only be done
        by understanding the beam spectrum itself as the final state signature is
        identical to the oscillation signal.

     The collaboration have designed and optimized a detector/system to perform this
      measurement using the high intensity NUMI beamline currently running at
      Fermilab. It will be upgraded to 700 kW by the time NOvA begins data taking.
      The NOvA collaboration will locate their 18 kT liquid scintillator far detector 12
      km off of the NUMI beamline axis 810 km from Fermilab in order to achieve a
      maximally monochromatic neutrino beam at the first oscillation maximum. A 218
      T near detector will be located at an angle of 14 mRadians off of the NUMI
      beamline at Fermilab.

Comments
   Detector

      o Neutrino detectors with sufficient segmentation and little dead material can
        distinguish pi0 production in neutral current (NC) muon neutrino interactions
        from Charged Current (CC) electron neutrino interactions with good
        resolution. The collaboration has chosen to optimize their detector for
        rejection of NC backgrounds by making it ~70% active and using liquid
        scintillator as the active medium. Backgrounds from cosmic ray photons are
        reduced by a concrete and barite overburden and by the short NUMI beam
        pulse. The reconstruction efficiency for nu_e within the fiducial region is ~
        31% with background rejection of 3:1000.

      o The energy resolution of the detector needs to be small enough that detector
        resolution does not significantly broaden the measured beam energy beyond
        the 25% beam spread. For electron neutrino CC events, the baseline design
        achieves 6% resolution for all events and 4% resolution for quasi-elastic
        interactions.   For muon neutrino events the event energy resolution
        requirement for precision measurements of the atmospheric neutrino
        parameters is 4%. The resolutions for both nu_e and nu_mu interactions are
        well within the design criteria.

      o Understanding of electron neutrino contamination in the beam itself requires a
        20 T fiducial volume near detector, which samples the beam before
        oscillation. The collaboration has decided on a fixed 218 T near detector
        located in a new enclosure off of the NUMI access tunnel.

      o Optimizations of the detector design and reconstruction algorithms have been
        done using full simulations of the beam and the detector response.


                       Director’s CD-2/3a Review of the NOvA Project
                                      June 4 - 6, 2007

                                                                                Page 9 of 78
Issued July 5, 2007


General conclusion - the detector performance and location parameters have been well
optimized to maximize the physics impact of the experiment. The remaining parameter is
the product (mass x efficiency x running time x neutrino flux) which is largely
determined by the resources available.

        Fiducial mass

         o The far detector configuration presented for this review has been reduced
           from 25kT mass at the time of the 2006 CD1 review to 18 kT mass using the
           same detector technology. The beam flux assumed is now 6.0 10^20 pot/year
           for 6 years, while some earlier proposals assumed 6.5 10^20 pot/year.

         o The collaboration have defined a figure of merit S/Sqrt(B) where S is signal
           for sin2 2theta_13 at the Chooz limit of 0.1 and B is the background from
           beam contamination and other interactions misidentified as electron neutrino
           interactions. A figure of merit of 30 corresponds to a 3 sigma sensitivity to
           sin^2 2theta_13 > 0.01.

         o Assuming an equivalent six year running time the change in beam flux
           assumption and fiducial mass lowers the optimal FOM from 33 for a 25 kT
           detector, 6.5 10^20pot/year and a 6 year run to 27 for an 18kT detector and
           6.0 10^20 pot/year. We were not certain if the improvements in algorithmic
           efficiency and background rejection were included in the numbers given in the
           TDR so these may be underestimates.

         o We heard that a further reduction in mass to 14kT may be necessary to stay
           within the cost envelope. This would reduce the FOM to below 25 for a 6
           year run.

         o However, if one states this in terms of sensitivity to sin^2 2theta_13, the
           sensitivity to the physics observable for a 6 year run changes from 0.0094 at
           25 kT to 0.012 at 18 kT to 0.014 at 14 kT.

         o Addressing decreases in mass by increasing the running time implies a
           substantially longer run which may not be feasible.

        Observation - sections 4 and section 6 of the TDR are currently inconsistent in
         their estimates of the sensitivity. Section 6 needs to be updated to reflect the new
         baseline pot/year and mass numbers as well as the improvements in algorithms.

Recommendations
   1. The mass and flux estimates in the TDR need to be made consistent.

    2. The continued shrinkage of the NOvA far detector is an area of concern. The
       collaboration needs to come up with a consistent plan which allows the project to
       reconcile the cost guidance with maximal physics sensitivity.


                          Director’s CD-2/3a Review of the NOvA Project
                                         June 4 - 6, 2007
Page 10 of 78
                                                                           Issued July 5, 2007


3.0       Site and Building (WBS 1/2.1)
Findings
    The site preparation and access road drawings for the Ash River Trail site have
      been prepared by Burns and McDonnell and are 95% complete. The remaining
      5% design effort includes revising the excavation plan for the building to match
      the current plans for the detector hall concrete design. The review committee was
      provided with review comments and resulting responses and actions from
      comment and compliance and QA reviews for the site access road design. Several
      comments contained within these reviews were from the University of Minnesota
      (UM) stakeholders, which confirms that the future site owners have been involved
      in this design effort.

         The Ash River site building drawings are between 30% and 55% complete and
          have been prepared in FESS Engineering. The design team plans to issue these
          design drawings for a comment and compliance review of all stakeholders in the
          near future. NOvA plans to complete the structural concrete drawings within
          FESS Engineering and couple them with the site preparation and access road
          scope to ensure the excavation and structural concrete work is fully coordinated.

         CD-3a approval will be sought for the site preparation and access road scope
          along with structural concrete scope. These packages are planned to bid
          concurrently in the first quarter of FY 2008. This methodology is being
          implemented to support issuing the contractor Notice to Proceed in the third
          quarter of FY 2008.

         A cooperative agreement is being developed between DOE and U Minn to
          support construction of the building by U Minn. This will clarify many open
          logistics questions regarding final design and construction.

         The technical requirements for the facility have been modified since the CD 1
          review. These changes have resulted in substantial increased cost for the facility
          and its systems.

         Extensive risk assessment documentation has been completed for most of the
          major elements of construction.

         The team has three independent cost estimates completed and is prepared to
          perform reconciliation between them. This is a conscientious action being taken
          to incorporate the best available information into the project estimate.

         The team has performed Monte Carlo analysis to assess adequacy of contingency.

         A review of the Basis of Estimate document revealed many actual quotes and bids
          for proposed work. This information is dependable to support the pricing
          proposals and assigned contingencies included in the project.

                           Director’s CD-2/3a Review of the NOvA Project
                                          June 4 - 6, 2007

                                                                                   Page 11 of 78
Issued July 5, 2007


        The project has developed an excellent option for wetland banking. This appears
         to be a low-cost opportunity to manage the mitigation of wetlands needed by the
         project.

        NOvA intends to construct a space to contain the near detector in the MINOS
         cavern downstream of the MINOS access shaft. A preliminary design exists and
         the design team is prepared to proceed with selecting a consultant to further
         develop the concept to obtain a more accurate construction estimate.

Comments
   The Cooperative Agreement between DOE and U Minn is not yet complete. This
    document is needed to allow further development of MOUs and responsibility
    matrixes.

        The Environmental Assessment process is not complete. The EA has been
         prepared to include the work for the Ash River site and the work planned at Fermi
         Lab. The EA will require public review by Illinois, Wisconsin and Minnesota.
         This document should be finished and sent out for comment as soon as possible.
         It is our assumption that the decision on the Environmental Assessment must be
         complete prior to initiation of work on either site.

        The site preparation and access road plans do appear to be substantially complete.
         Coordination of the building excavation and structural concrete is key to keeping
         the project on schedule and minimize change orders so the reviewers concur with
         the approach to complete the structural concrete drawings and include that scope
         in the initial procurements done under the UM CA. We suggest the site borings
         and rock coring data be shown on the site preparation and access road drawings
         for completeness.

        Activities required to support the requirements of CD-3a include successful
         completion of the Lehman review in July, followed by an External Independent
         Review (EIR date to be determined), and finally the ESAAB approval of CD 2/3a
         in the fourth quarter of FY 2007. These activities are not currently shown in the
         schedule.

        A drill down on the Open Plan schedule revealed inconsistencies between Open
         Plan and the Basis of Estimate data book (specifically WBS 2.1.2.3.5.1.1,
         2.2.2.3.5.1.2, 2.1.2.3.5.8.3, 2.1.2.3.5.8.5). These documents should be reviewed
         and reconciled for consistency.

        The review team feels NOvA should retain the services of a consulting firm in the
         near future to continue the development of the near detector excavation in the
         MINOS Hall.




                          Director’s CD-2/3a Review of the NOvA Project
                                         June 4 - 6, 2007
Page 12 of 78
                                                                        Issued July 5, 2007


Recommendations
   3. It is recommended that the project develop a responsibility matrix that exhibits the
      various requirements and responsibilities of the individual team members related
      to the construction and oversight of the road, site and facility.

   4. It is important to further develop the schedule incorporating the activities leading
      to an approval of CD-3a.




                        Director’s CD-2/3a Review of the NOvA Project
                                       June 4 - 6, 2007

                                                                                Page 13 of 78
Issued July 5, 2007


4.0       Commodities – Scintillator/Fiber/PVC (WBS 1/2.2, 1/2.3 & 1/2.4)
Findings
    Commodity items are estimated to account for approximately 40% of the Total
      Estimated Cost (TEC).

         For all three commodities, actual solicitations were issued, and fixed pricing
          (indexed and subject to various escalators identified) proposed by suppliers was
          used as the basis of estimates. A more recent quote on mineral oil pricing is
          available but is not currently used in the cost and contingency estimate.

         The scintillator is made by combining purchased components, the largest being
          the mineral oil. A change since the last review is that the mixing is done by a
          commercial vendor, instead of in-house. Most items can be competitively bid,
          except for the wave shifters, for which only one viable source has been identified.

         At this time there is only a sole supplier identified for the wave-length shifting
          fiber. Pricing is known to be not strongly dependent on the concentration of the
          dye.

         Since the last review, the 16-cell extrusion was chosen as the baseline for forming
          the PVC extrusions due to the high cost of manufacturing a 32-cell die and resin
          flow problems encountered during R&D for the 16-cell prototype. The costs of
          the production dies are included in the contract with the extruder.

Comments
   The terms “Purchase” and “Procure” are used in many different ways throughout
    the project planning documents, representing different segments of the
    procurement process

         Continuing to request estimates from the same suppliers for dwindling quantities
          could have a negative affect on estimates and final pricing proposals.

         Extensive QA/QC procedures were presented for each commodity at appropriate
          stages of the acquisition process. Onsite project QA reps will be located at
          production sites when appropriate.

         Shipping and handling costs for the extrusions seem to be well developed.

         The Level 2 managers did not have time to review and correct the Open Plan
          documents before the Review.

Recommendations
   5. Scrub the costs and schedules in Open Plan.

      6. Develop a standard procurement milestone plan to use across the commodities.


                           Director’s CD-2/3a Review of the NOvA Project
                                          June 4 - 6, 2007
Page 14 of 78
                                                                    Issued July 5, 2007


7. Use the current pricing estimate available for the mineral oil and recalculate the
   contingency.




                    Director’s CD-2/3a Review of the NOvA Project
                                   June 4 - 6, 2007

                                                                            Page 15 of 78
Issued July 5, 2007


5.0       Extrusion Module Production (WBS 1/2.5)
Findings
    The module construction team presented the latest status on the design, testing
      and performance of the PVC modules. The presentations covered the module
      design, factory machines, tooling, module production and the photodetector
      interface. Currently the production concept has work performed at two factories,
      one located at Fermilab and one located in Minnesota.

         The module consists of 32 cell PVC extrusion assemblies made from two 16 cell
          extrusions that are glued together, a bottom seal assembly, a top fiber manifold
          and seal assembly, WLS fibers and the optical connector/interface to the readout
          APD. There are two different types of modules: Vertical and Horizontal. They
          differ in the mechanical structure of the extrusions: the vertical have thicker walls
          for strength. So far only horizontal extrusions have been fabricated at full scale.

         The raw 16 cell extrusions are first delivered to the Fermilab factory where they
          are unpacked, entered into the database (via bar-code ID), visually inspected and
          measured (thickness, width, and length) and sorted according to the
          measurements. All measurements are entered into the database. A 32 cell
          module is then made by gluing two 16 cell extrusions together. The 32 cell
          module is then cut to length and abraded near the ends to facilitate gluing in
          subsequent assembly steps. At this time the cutting is done by hand using a
          circular saw with a carbide tip and an edge guide mounted on the module. The
          completed modules are then stacked in groups of 30 wrapped and shipped to the
          Minnesota Factory. Designs for pallet movers (commercial air) lifting fixtures,
          rolling tables and gluing tables are complete and have, for the most part, been
          tested (not yet for full length for gluing table).

         The 32 cell extrusions modules are delivered to the Minnesota factory by truck on
          pallets of 30. The Minnesota factory will be located off-campus at a rented
          facility of approximately 60k ft2. At the Minnesota facility, the 32 channel
          extrusion assemblies are first stacked, interleaved with 3” spacers, in preparation
          for all operations. The top fiber manifold assembly is then put on the 32 channel
          extrusion. This assembly includes the WLS fibers (strung in each of the 32 cells),
          side and center seals, raceways, fiber cover, snout and the optical connector and
          the manifold cover. The WLS fibers are routed to the optical connector during
          this step. There are various glue steps in this operation with the resultant
          assembly being liquid tight. The optical connector gets its diamond polish (fly-
          cut) at this time. Liquid scintillator fill, vent and drain ports are in this assembly.
          After the top fiber manifold assembly is complete and all glues cured, the end seal
          is glued to the other end of the extrusion cells. Two glue systems are used in both
          the end seal and fiber manifold. 3M 2216, a 2-component epoxy, is used to form
          the barrier seal between the scintillator and the outside world. It is inert and does
          not affect the scintillator properties nor are its properties affected by the
          scintillator. The second adhesive is Devcon Plastic Welder. It is structurally
          strong and provides the main strength to the bonding system. It is not in contact
                            Director’s CD-2/3a Review of the NOvA Project
                                           June 4 - 6, 2007
Page 16 of 78
                                                                        Issued July 5, 2007


       with the scintillator. If it comes in contact with the scintillator it will affect the
       scintillator performance. Its properties also appear to be altered when it gets in
       contact with the scintillator. The barrier glue, 2216, prevents this from
       happening. After cure the completed module is tested for leak tightness (using
       pressurized gas and a bubble detector) and fiber continuity. The completed
       modules passing test are then packed and made ready for shipment to the NOvA
       site. The current concept is that modules that fail testing are not repaired. A very
       low failure rate is required and is the current expectation.

      The PVC module team has evaluated the health and safety aspects of factory
       operations and presented a good plan to assure the health and safety of all
       personnel involved with the production. They have paid particular attention to
       lifting fixtures and are working on a detailed training program for all personnel.
       Issues due to glue fumes will be dealt with by providing appropriate ventilation.

      Major productions risks have been identified, but we have not seen a detailed risk
       register for this WBS project element.

      Since the CD-1 review, the estimated cost for the PVC modules has increased
       from $13.8M to $21.1M. The cost increase is entirely due to labor increases.
       [Note, the CDR-1 review committee commented that they thought the labor
       estimates at that time were thin and asked the team to re-evaluate their labor
       estimates.]

Comments
   The committee commends the PVC module team on the excellent progress that
    they have made since the CD-1 review. Most factory machine and tooling
    designs are complete and procedures are well developed. Concerns regarding the
    End Plate and Fiber Manifold gluing/seals have been addressed. Regarding the
    End Plate seals, we note that the team has now performed 57 trial seals on 16 cell
    extrusions. The procedures have now stabilized and the last 10 trials sealed
    successfully. Obviously this is still a small sample and must be monitored
    carefully during production for the prototype in order to guarantee that there are
    no subtle problems occurring at a small level. The team should make sure that all
    operations are controlled as tightly as possible so that production errors are
    minimized. Automation should be implemented where ever possible.

      The interference between vertical and horizontal fiber manifolds in some regions
       of the detector is still a concern with the clearance in these areas only being a few
       mm. This clearance seems tight to the committee.

      We feel that the space in the Wide Band Hall is far from optimal for NOvA
       operations. Given the nature of the work required for the PVC extrusion
       processing, the current layout for Factory 1 (WBH) requires a great deal of
       otherwise unnecessary handling of the extrusions, including a move of 20 vertical
       ft. from the loading dock to the pit and back up again. The estimate given by the

                        Director’s CD-2/3a Review of the NOvA Project
                                       June 4 - 6, 2007

                                                                                  Page 17 of 78
Issued July 5, 2007


         NOvA team was that approximately $1M in labor could be saved if an optimized
         layout for Factory 1 were available. Local leasing costs for industrial space are
         low enough that a local offsite factory staffed by Fermilab personnel may be cost
         effective.

        It was noted that construction for the Minerva Detector does not end until
         9/30/2009 according to Minerva’s current project plan. This only leaves 1 month
         between Minerva finishing and NOvA production start. In addition there are
         some significant modifications to the Wide Band Hall that need to be done to
         accommodate NOvA operations. This overall schedule (Minerva/NOvA) seems
         excessively tight.

        There are a great many dies/molds that need to be procured for production of the
         varied components (optical connectors, seals, covers, etc.) and these parts often
         have long lead times. The production team will have to maintain close
         coordination with procurement in order to guarantee that there are no unexpected
         delays caused by parts delivery delays.

        The cost estimate is sound given the amount of information (engineering
         drawings, vendor quotes, etc.) that went into the B.O.Es. The contingency level is
         appropriate for this stage of the project. The reviewers felt that the contingency
         on the labor for Factory 1 was somewhat low, however.

Recommendations
   8. Fully automate glue application to the end seal extrusion

    9. Reconsider the location of Factory 1 in the Fermilab Wide-Band Hall. Consider
       leasing a facility with enough space to incorporate both Factory 1 production
       activities and the needs for interim storage.

    10. Consider improving the fixturing for cutting the 32 cell assemblies to length.
        Even with an edge guide, cutting by hand with a circular saw can still lead to an
        irregular edge. This could lead to sealing problems. The current procedure does
        raise some safety concerns.

    11. Prototype and test as soon as possible the baseline method (packed desiccant) for
        insuring that the sealed gas volume surrounding the APD (interface region
        between the APD module and the PVC module optical connector) remains dry
        and prevents any possibility of condensation on the APD or fiber surfaces. Some
        thought should be given as to how a dry N2 purge could be added if the desiccant
        concept does not work well enough.

    12. The team should make use of the evolving 3D model of the detector to better
        evaluate if there will be an interference between vertical and horizontal
        components in some parts of the detector.



                          Director’s CD-2/3a Review of the NOvA Project
                                         June 4 - 6, 2007
Page 18 of 78
                                                                     Issued July 5, 2007


13. We recommend that a purchasing expediter be added to the NOvA Project Office
    Staff at the appropriate time.

14. Increase contingency on labor for Factory 1 to 50%

15. Given the potential problems that might occur if the scintillator comes in contact
    with the Devcon PlasticWelder, we recommend that the team perform additional
    tests (hydrostatic) on the barrier seal to get an estimate on the expected volume of
    scintillator that might come in contact with the Devcon adhesive.




                     Director’s CD-2/3a Review of the NOvA Project
                                    June 4 - 6, 2007

                                                                             Page 19 of 78
Issued July 5, 2007


6.0       Electronics, Trigger DAQ (WBS 1/2.6 & 1/2.7)
Findings
    Light from the NOvA scintillator will be collected with a segmented Avalanche
      Photodiode (APD) containing 32 pixels that map onto the 32 cells of a single
      detector module. A minimum ionizing particle at the far end of a detector module
      (with respect to the readout electronics) will yield a signal of 20 photoelectrons.
      The APD will be operated with a gain of ~100. The gain is sensitive to
      temperature and bias voltage variations. The APD will be read out by a Front-
      End Board (FEB) that contains an ASIC that integrates, amplifies and multiplexes
      the signals; a 12-bit ADC to digitize the signal; and an FPGA to sparsify and
      format the data. The FEB also will control the Thermo-Electric Cooler (TEC)
      used to maintain the APD operating temperature of –15°C. With these conditions
      a signal-to-noise of 10:1 is expected. Data will be sent from the FEBs to 64-
      channel Data Concentrator Modules (DCM). These collect the data in large
      packets. In order to build events, the 228 Data Concentrators use a time-stamp to
      send data to a single processor that is used primarily as a buffer for the data. A
      farm of processors is used, with each processor collecting data in one-second
      intervals. The interconnection between the concentrators and the processors will
      be achieved using commercial gigabit ethernet switches. The trigger consists of
      having the processor farm nodes extract data from the buffer memory based on
      the cycle time of the Fermilab Main Injector. Total burdened and escalated costs
      for front-end electronics and the data acquisition system are $22M and $4.3M,
      respectively, including 44% and 27% contingencies.

         The NOvA team is requesting CD3a approval for APD and ASIC production and
          for packaging the ADCs which have already been purchased.

Comments
   The NOvA Front-End and DAQ group presented several well-prepared talks
    during the breakout session. The group has a clear understanding of the
    requirements for the subproject and how to achieve them.

         There has been substantial progress since the Director’s CD-1 review. The
          prototypes of the APD, ASIC, FEB, and DCM are near to the final design and
          have been validated for much of the needed functionality. COTS items (e.g.
          power supplies, coolers) have been identified and costed. There is a well-
          developed plan for slow controls. Prototyping of APD housings is also at an
          advanced stage.

         There was no risk analysis for the subproject.

         There are many discrepancies in WBS. Many of the tasks do not have the correct
          predecessors. Many of the BoEs were not available in the BoE book or did not
          have the correct activity ID corresponding to the WBS.


                           Director’s CD-2/3a Review of the NOvA Project
                                          June 4 - 6, 2007
Page 20 of 78
                                                                        Issued July 5, 2007


      The WBS did not include reviews prior to purchase of production quantities of
       custom elements.

      NOvA has done a buy/build analysis since CD1 and decided to include the APD
       carrier in the contract with Hamamatsu. This is one reason for the increase in the
       expected cost.

      Data were shown for 15 prototype APDs. Two clearly missed the 5nA maximum
       dark current at 25C for all channels. 4 had average dark current near 4nA,
       indicating it is likely that the chips did not meet the specification.

Recommendations
   16. Complete and document a full risk analysis for the APDs.     The risk analysis
       should include the possible mitigations for higher dark current such as lower
       operating temperature or changes to FEB parameters to enable NOvA to achieve
       the 10:1 noise specification.

   17. A risk analysis is needed for the FEB and DCM. Because the production is
       scheduled to be late in the project, parts may become obsolete. It is necessary to
       consider the relative merits of purchasing components early against the possibility
       of needing to redesign the boards.

   18. A system integration test including fully functioning APD, TEC and FEB is
       necessary to demonstrate the performance of the APD prior to making the
       purchase of the requested CD-3a items.

   19. The WBS needs scrubbed to reflect the updated plan for APD assembly:
       o Remove references to carrier board manufacture

       o Unify nomenclature for “housing”, “module”, etc.

       o Include module assembly either as a separate step or with testing at CalTech
         and Minnesota.

   20. Include reviews prior to purchase of production quantities. The approval of the
       designs and quote packages should be milestones for the level 3 subprojects.

   21. The WBS should be scrubbed to have proper dependencies. For example, the
       vertical slice tests should depend on completion of testing of included devices
       with a review to follow.

   22. The acquisition schedule for the APDs needs to be clarified. The vertical slice
       test was reported to be delayed. The schedule shows the APD pilot production for
       use on the IPND to be occurring 8/07 through 1/08. Given the uncertainty in
       APD qualification and the negotiations with Hamamatsu, there is some danger
       that the APDs become a critical path item for an IPND run beginning in 10/08.


                        Director’s CD-2/3a Review of the NOvA Project
                                       June 4 - 6, 2007

                                                                                Page 21 of 78
Issued July 5, 2007


7.0       Far and Near Detector Assembly (WBS 1/2.8 & 2.9)
Findings
 The Near Detector is described to be a 215 metric ton mass detector, 4.2 m x 2.9 m x
   16.2 m, fabricated from 496 modules and located in a new cavern carved into the side
   of the MINOS tunnel. The detector will include 3 plane block assemblies from the
   IPND and 28 new blocks fabricated at ANL. The blocks will be lowered into the
   MINOS tunnel via an entry shaft and rolled into the new cavern where it will be filled
   with ~30,000 gallons of liquid scintillator. The proposed excavated cavern design is
   not fixed yet and needs the installation group to determine access and other technical
   requirements which define the cavern size. The cavern excavation will begin at the
   start of the MINOS downtime in October 2010 followed by installation of the
   detector.

     The Far Detector is an 18kt mass detector fabricated from 1178 planes (593 V + 585
      H) that are developed into 5 Superblocks. Each empty superblock is structurally
      stable and will be filled with liquid scintillator when bounded by a second superblock.
      The total volume of liquid scintillator is ~3,900,000 gallons and requires a special
      delivery system piped throughout the Far Detector building. The detector assembly
      group will prepare the hall infrastructure including electrical distribution, machine
      shop, control room, office area, shield wall and safety equipment. The assembly
      group will receive ~14,200 completed modules, transport them through the gluing
      stage, and stack them onto a pivot table alternating direction to form a 31 plane block
      unit. The pivot table will tilt and install the block unit, weighing ~330,000 lbs,
      vertically in its final location returning to begin assembly of the next block unit.
      Detector plane outfitting will follow including electronics racks and chillers, cable
      trays, chiller water loops, power and data distribution boxes. The total assembly
      process is projected to take ~2.8 calendar years beginning after beneficial occupancy
      of the new building in April 2010.

     Three detector prototypes are planned; the Integration Prototype Near Detector
      (IPND) which is close in size to the Near detector and will be fully outfitted with
      electronics and operated with NuMI neutrino beams. The Full-scale Assembly
      Prototype (FSAP) will be ~52’ long, assembled of 8 planes and will be used to
      optimize assembly techniques, time and motion studies, adhesive dispenser, and
      handling. The Full-height Engineering Prototype (FHEP) detector will be fabricated
      out of two 31 plane blocks, ~52’ long, will be filled with liquid, and used to measure
      deformation over an extended period.

Comments
   Safety considerations are high on the detector assembly engineering teams
    priority list as is evident in the thorough details of the Scintillator transfer facility
    and Block assembly and installation planning. This is a good thing.

         Block assembly and installation has a comprehensive plan detailing the labor and
          equipment needed to meet the project timeline. The work plan is for one 10 hour
          shift per day, 4 days per week, with two crews and two days overlap, Monday
                           Director’s CD-2/3a Review of the NOvA Project
                                          June 4 - 6, 2007
Page 22 of 78
                                                                        Issued July 5, 2007


       through Saturday. Breakdowns of manpower and task assignments were shown
       with a hiring plan up to the peak of 29 FTE at full production. While the number
       of technicians per task seems set to a minimum, as in 1 FTE for glue technician, it
       was mentioned that the crew bosses are working type foremen and will assist
       when needed. This is an area where a single illness or injury could jeopardize the
       production plan and should be evaluated to determine if there is sufficient
       coverage to sustain the full rate assembly. Production fatigue is an area of concern
       both in safety of personnel and in quality of the product; a rotation plan for
       personnel to different tasks may want to be considered.

      Routine maintenance and repair of assembly equipment for the Far Detector will
       be necessary to reduce the MTBF and maintain production rate. Development of a
       planned approach to servicing cranes and vacuum lifts (cranes require full load
       testing on a yearly basis), lubrication and maintenance of pivot table, adhesive
       dispenser, as well as the HVAC system required to maintain production is
       warranted and the impact on schedule, if any, determined.

      ES&H activities were clearly shown by the presenters and indicate that they are
       conscious to design safety into their systems as part of their engineering planning
       processes. A NOvA Safety Plan for the Far Detector assembly was presented
       calling for a Safety Committee containing members from Fermilab, U of M-
       ES&H, Detector Safety Officer and Detector Manager who would review
       equipment certifications, site inspections and operating procedures – excellent
       plan. However, a “minimum of yearly inspections to insure safe working
       conditions.” was one bullet in the slide, and while this is important, it is
       significantly understated. Safety inspections and walk-through of a production
       facility should be done on a regular basis, weekly at a minimum, with daily
       morning tailgate meetings with workers to review tasks and procedures. An
       Integrated Safety Management (ISM) plan should be developed to be the core of
       the safety policy, ensuring DOE policies are met.

Recommendations
   23. Perform a careful and detailed study of the detector assembly program with
       consideration given to programmatic impacts from normal equipment
       maintenance and worker safety resulting from the project’s ISM plan. Included in
       this study should be a review of schedule impact due to equipment failure/repair
       as this will cause an alteration to the work planning process. Recommend
       increasing the number of assembly staff at the Far Detector area to allow for on
       going worker training while maintaining a full production capability. This can be
       accomplished without cost increase by reduction of the 100% labor contingency.




                        Director’s CD-2/3a Review of the NOvA Project
                                       June 4 - 6, 2007

                                                                                Page 23 of 78
Issued July 5, 2007


Technical:

Findings
Near Detector& IPND Assembly:
    The near detector was not looked at extensively and the IPND was looked at less.
      The proposed cost of the near detector increased by about 4.1 million dollars since
      the last review. This was attributed to the fact that now a tunnel will have to be
      excavated for the detector. Across the board, the M&S contingency was listed at
      40% for all levels and the Labor contingency was listed at 50%.

Far Detector Assembly:
     NOvA 27 Formulation is relatively new and the creep data is not yet obtained. If
       the committee understands correctly Formulation NOvA 27 is now the final
       formulation. The creep simulations are using data from PET-B Formulation and
       calling it a “worst case” scenario. Current data for NOvA 27 Formulation is worse
       than PET-B, but they predict that it will be better after 47 days of data are
       collected as seen in the graph below.




Comments
Near Detector& IPND Assembly:
    It was not found out how the Near Detector contingency numbers were assigned
      but they seem somewhat arbitrary. Perhaps not as much time was put into the

                        Director’s CD-2/3a Review of the NOvA Project
                                       June 4 - 6, 2007
Page 24 of 78
                                                                        Issued July 5, 2007


       Near Hall Cost Estimation since the cost is 4 times less than the far detector. The
       scheduling for the near detector seemed ok but the excavation time seemed short
       and the procurement of the liquid scintillator filling equipment seemed long as the
       scintillator filling device should be transferred from the IPND. The cost and
       schedule estimates relied on the MINOS experienced staff for input.

Far Detector Assembly:
     If Formulation 27 is not set as the final formulation, then the final formulation
       needs to be set ASAP. The NOvA team should not feel comfortable presenting the
       formulation 27 creep data information until at least 30 days of data were
       calculated. If the NOvA 27 Formulation actually has worse creep values than the
       PET-B formulation, then they would almost certainly have to change the
       formulation again. It is the reviewer’s feeling that since the formulation of NOvA
       24 and NOvA 27 are similar in all ways except for a change from rutile to anatase
       TiO2, then the creep properties will be similar if the particle size of the TiO2 is
       similar for both formulations.

      Some procedure needs to be implemented that triggers the level of review needed
       for each unit operation. The major items which need to be heavily peer reviewed
       in the far detector are: 1) The Creep Analysis 2) The vapor recovery system and
       the amount of MMA which is being produced 3) The block pivoter and 4) The
       Scintillator Distribution System.

      Some extensive hazard analysis has been done but more still needs to be done.

      Strain gauges need to be specified to see if the detector is creeping faster than
       expected.

      Minimal risk assessment has been done. Some hazard analysis has been done.

Scheduling

      Scheduling for major components seemed reasonable except for some of them did
       not allow time for design review and none of them allowed for change from
       comments from the review process.

      It is hard to say how accurate the scheduling is without the risk analysis
       information. The budget did have 100% contingency for labor which would allow
       for 2 shifts to allow for some catch-up. The block pivoting device is scheduled
       under 2.9.1 and 2.9.4, which is confusing.

Costing

      The cost of the far detector went down 4 million dollars since the last review and
       it is most likely from the mass being reduced from 25 ktons to 18 ktons.


                        Director’s CD-2/3a Review of the NOvA Project
                                       June 4 - 6, 2007

                                                                                Page 25 of 78
Issued July 5, 2007


        One specific error found was in 2.9.1.1, the module lifting fixtures had 0% M&S
         contingency. The labor contingency was also listed as 100% in the WBS and
         85% in the BoE.

Recommendations
Near Detector& IPND Assembly
   24. Reexamine the scintillator filling equipment and excavation time estimates.

    25. Include more information in the BoE quotes including specific references.

    26. “Scrub” the M&S and Labor contingency estimates.

Far Detector Assembly
    27. Set the PVC formulation as soon as possible if it is not already set at NOvA
        formulation 27.

    28. Risk assessment needs to be done on all major unit operations.

    29. Implement a system that triggers the level of review needed for each unit
        operation and start on major items listed in comments above.

    30. The content in the BoE’s needs to be improved to include the sources that the
        financial estimates come from and match them to WBS.

Technical (Feasibility and Design status):

Near Detector Structure
Findings
    A good technical description of a 215 ton near detector sited in a newly excavated
      side cavern is given in the TDR.

        The module blocks are of identical construction as the far detector module blocks
         except for their overall size (much smaller) and are supported from the bottom.

        The muon catcher modules and steel plates are hung from a steel beam support
         structure. The design of these is currently at about the 15% level (mid-conceptual
         design phase), although the similarity to previous MINOS designs indicates no
         problems.

        The PVC extrusions will be shipped to FNAL for matching, then shipped to UM
         for assembly, then shipped to ANL for block assembly and finally back to FNAL
         for installation.

        It is hoped (planned) that 3 of the 4 blocks will be re-used from the prototype test
         in the MINOS service building.

        Stresses, deflections and creep strains should be minimal due the much lower
         scintillator column height (3 psi head).
                          Director’s CD-2/3a Review of the NOvA Project
                                         June 4 - 6, 2007
Page 26 of 78
                                                                        Issued July 5, 2007


      Common material moving methods will be used to install detector blocks (fork
       truck, wheeled block support frames).

      Secondary containment is achieved with commercially available containment
       materials and dams.

Comments
   It should be noted that, due to the similarity to Far Detector construction, design
    assumptions and decisions should be re-evaluated during final design of the Near
    Detector to ensure applicability.

Recommendations
None.

Far Detector Structure
Findings
     The TDR (Chapter 17) adequately describes a current, cohesive conceptual design
       in the advanced state of analysis. On going prototypes and mock-ups are being
       used to verify the validity of this analysis. Although a design choice has been
       made for the support structure of the Far Detector, it is clear further evaluation
       and testing are required to gain confidence in that choice. Additionally, other
       support options will be pursued that may hold advantages (more economical,
       more flexible, higher confidence in stability).

      Creep tests using the current pick of PVC formulation (N27) are on-going.
       Further testing is required to confirm the use of the “worst-case” (PET-B) creep
       modulus used in FEA analysis is truly conservative.

      Adhesive peeling force (Devcon) is identified as the limiting factor for elastic
       stresses (as opposed to non-linear creep induced buckling) in the structure.

      Stresses in PVC need to be kept below 600 psi to stay in linear viscoelastic range
       such that using creep modulus test data is valid in models.

      Adhesive is modeled as spring elements and, in the model, does not contribute
       stiffness to the structure.

      Buckling of the horizontal module webs by block-to-block and super-block-to-
       super-block interactions during creep induced vertical block buckling is currently
       predicted to be the primary failure mode at a time-under-load prediction of 20
       years (the pronounced life-time requirement for the structure).

      The TDR describes the state of the structure design (as it exists now) adequately.

      The design status is at about 25% for building the described detector (if one
       combines conceptual design as part of the design).

                        Director’s CD-2/3a Review of the NOvA Project
                                       June 4 - 6, 2007

                                                                                Page 27 of 78
Issued July 5, 2007


        Independent peer review of engineering notes and independent committee reviews
         are planned.

Comments
   We are encouraged that the Project recognizes the need for careful review of the
    structure by outside experts. Selection of expert reviewers is important to this
    process. Also, review committees should be charged with assuring consistency of
    assumptions across the various individual system analyses that affect each other.

        FEA seems to predict accurately the swelling in individual blocks and this will be
         confirmed with planned mock-up tests. FEA of interactions between blocks and
         super-blocks during buckling is complicated and not as well understood. One test
         (2 block test), close to full height is planned (with water) that may help gain
         confidence with interactions between blocks. However, the buckling will only
         occur after significant time (5-15 years) and, possibly, an upset event, so it is not
         clear that planned testing will confirm those analyses.

Recommendations
   31. Continue with current course of FEA analysis and prototype/creep testing to
       explore various loading conditions, sensitivities, and verification of analysis. This
       includes the close to full height 2 block test with water. The use of water is
       deemed satisfactory for these structural tests. Structural creep tests require long
       periods of data collection and the delay of starting such a test from contending
       with the ES&H and handling issues of large quantities of liquid scintillator should
       be avoided. Chemical interactions between PVC and the scintillator oil
       ingredients can be done in smaller stand-alone tests. If interactions are noted,
       then long term tests can be planned and performed at that time.

    32. Investigate ways to accelerate block-to-block interaction tests that depend on
        creep and/or creep induced buckling (elevated temperature).

    33. Plan a rigorous technical review (or series of reviews) of the base-line structure
        design utilizing external experts as soon as reasonably possible. This should
        include experts in the fields of plastic creep behavior, non-linear FEA, and
        buckling.

Far Detector Assembly Equipment (incl. scintillator filling)
Findings
     Key assembly equipment is in the mid-stages of conceptual design (except the
       module vacuum lifting device which is in the final stages of detailed design).

        The TDR adequately describes the function and conceptual design of key
         equipment (vacuum lifter, glue dispenser, block pivoter, scintillator filling
         equipment).




                          Director’s CD-2/3a Review of the NOvA Project
                                         June 4 - 6, 2007
Page 28 of 78
                                                                        Issued July 5, 2007


      The design status overall of assembly equipment is gauged to be about 25%.
       There exists enough of a conceptual design in most cases to enable cost estimates.
       However, changes to design concepts are still possible and/or likely.

      Design status is not yet advanced enough to perform ergonomic studies.

Comments
   Reliance upon design reviews and peer reviewed engineering notes is required.

      The block pivoter is to be assembled and tested in a “parking lot”. The weight of a
       fully loaded pivoter is predicted to be nearly ½ million pounds. Some thought will
       obviously be needed to limit the testing to what a parking lot can endure.

Recommendations
   34. Continue to advance design and prototyping of key assembly equipment such that
       ergonomic and ES&H concerns can be addressed early in the design cycle.

Near Detector Assembly Equipment (incl. scintillator filling)
Findings
    Common material moving methods will be used to install detector blocks (fork
      truck, wheeled block support frames).

      Secondary containment of scintillator will be provided everywhere via PVC
       “shroud” piping or commercially available dam systems.

Comments
   None.

Recommendations
None.

Cost, Schedule, Resources, & Risk Management

Near Detector
Findings
    No BoEs or assigned contingency exists for any R&D activity. If contingency is
      required R&D activities will be de-scoped.

Comments
   Construction activities (aside from site preparation) begin in spring of 2011, it
    appears that most efforts are not directed at these activities (justifiably). As such
    the only BoE for Mechanical Construction and Installation (1 M$) is the purchase
    of the Muon catcher steel (0.4 K$).

      Most of the work (Mechanical Construction and Installation) is using
       conventional, well-understood methods so contingencies (generally around 40-
       50%) are reasonable even though drawings and specifications are not completed.
                        Director’s CD-2/3a Review of the NOvA Project
                                       June 4 - 6, 2007

                                                                                Page 29 of 78
Issued July 5, 2007


Recommendations
None.

Far Detector
Findings
     No BoEs or assigned contingency exists for any R&D activity. If contingency is
       required R&D activities will be de-scoped.

        For construction activities BoE was provided generally at WBS level 4. This
         resulted in 21 BoE’s.

        At least 1 level 4 summary task was supported with a BoE that did not cover all
         aspects of that summary tasks. BoE’s for a subset of subordinate tasks were also
         provided. It was not at all clear which BoE covered which activities.

        Schedules provided for Far Detector assembly were based upon detailed
         procedures outlined in the TDR. BoE for assembly work fail to reference the TDR
         and other supporting documentation.

        BoE’s are generally inconsistent in detail and content. Some are quite detailed and
         reference vendor quotes and sections of the TDR (and NOvA notes) (such as
         2073; WBS 2.9.4.2). Others reference “attached” documents that were not
         provided (2060; WBS 2.9.2.1). While others provide little detailed source
         information at all (2057; WBS 2.9.1.2).

        Contingencies are appropriately high for many tasks since the tasks are at the
         conceptual design phase. 70 to 100 %. Labor cont is 100% across the board.

        Contingency guidance does not allow for more than 100% contingency.

        Far Detector Assembly has not performed “what-if” scenarios to assess schedule
         impact if key assembly equipment fails.

        Remote site may incur extra delay penalties when key assembly equipment fails.

        One slide was presented (Block Pivoter) that addressed risk analysis by presenting
         possible failure scenarios with accompanying solutions. Otherwise, risk analysis
         was not presented.

        Placement of modules into the block assembly has not yet been tested on a scale
         or intensity that supports schedule estimates.

        Although references to vendor quotes and catalog prices were listed in the BoE’s,
         no copies or scanned images of those sources were provided.




                          Director’s CD-2/3a Review of the NOvA Project
                                         June 4 - 6, 2007
Page 30 of 78
                                                                        Issued July 5, 2007


Comments
   It is not at all clear that BoE’s have been produced at a resolution that instills
    confidence in a reviewer. Our impression is that there is much more work that has
    gone into these tasks and their accompanying estimates than is reflected in the
    BoE’s. Being engineers that have experienced the “trenches”, we understand this
    predicament. However, that may not be the understanding of a DOE reviewer.

      The large number of 100% contingencies listed (especially for labor) indicates
       that the design status is at a relatively low level. While this may be accurate, it is
       of concern that 100% contingency actually means equal to or greater than 100%
       since no contingencies above 100% are allowed.

      The tie between BoE’s and OpenPlan numbers is not solid. We found instances of
       discrepancies and confusion (if one adds up the BoE totals, minus contingency, it
       exceeds the cost of the roll-up by approx. 1 M$. And the BoE’s are not all
       inclusive). Also, one BoE had listed M&S contingency at 100% where Open Plan
       listed it as 0%.

Recommendations
   35. Provide tie-ins between BoE and technical documents.

   36. Increase resolution of BoE’s (by writing more BoE’s at a lower level or showing
       breakdown of estimates within those BoE’s written to cover multiple WBS
       activities; in the latter case, clearly indicate on the multiple activity BoE’s which
       activities or portions of activities are included).

   37. Continue with planned assembly tests and studies (time-motion) to provide basis
       of estimate for schedules.

   38. Perform risk analysis and “what-if” analysis to assess schedule and cost impact
       from downtime of key assembly equipment (glue dispenser, vacuum lifters,
       cranes, block pivoter, scintillation filling equipment, etc.)

   39. Scrub the BoE’s and RLS to attain consistency.

   40. Write BoE’s for R&D activities.




                        Director’s CD-2/3a Review of the NOvA Project
                                       June 4 - 6, 2007

                                                                                  Page 31 of 78
Issued July 5, 2007


8.0       Accelerator Upgrades (WBS 1/2.0.1 & 1/2.0.2)
Findings
    The scope of the accelerator upgrade portion of the NOVA project is to increase
      the beam power of the 120 GeV beam from the Main Injector onto the NuMI
      target to 700 kW from the present level of 192 kW.

         The upgrade will build on the “Proton Plan” that aims at increasing the 120 GeV
          beam power to 320 kW. The required increase in the proton throughput of the
          Booster is planned to be achieved entirely as part of the “Proton Plan”. The three
          times increase of the proton throughput of the Main Injector (MI) will be achieved
          by using the Recycler Ring (RR) for slip-stacking 12 proton batches from the
          Booster and reducing the MI cycle time to 1.333 s.

         The conversion of the RR from anti-proton to proton accumulation will require 5
          new or refurbished kicker systems and two new 53 MHz rf systems. The reduced
          MI cycle time will need two additional 53 MHz rf systems and an upgrade to one
          of the quadrupole power supplies.

         Slip-stacking of 11 Booster batches in the MI has been tested with the quite good
          efficiency of about 92%. The beam losses are made up of 2.8% from beam in the
          injection gap, 2.7% of debunched beam, and 1.7% slow beam loss during the
          injection front porch. With the installation of the gap cleaner kicker and the
          collimators only the latter beam loss is uncontrolled. This is in line with the
          NOvA upgrade design number.

         The project responded to recommendations from the SNuMI review in November
          2006. The responses were provided to this committee in a document entitled
          “Table of Recommendations for the Director’s Preliminary Review of the Super
          NuMI Plan November 14 – 16, 2006.” The project provided responses to six
          accelerator related recommendations that were considered to be related to NOvA.
          The recommendations, the responses and our comments on the responses are
          below.

          Recommendation #2: Concerning the kicker modules, their impedance and the
          danger of electron cloud, the committee recommends reconsidering the inside
          coating of the ceramics in terms of resistivity and SEY (Ti, TiN …).

          Response: Calculations determined that coating is not required. See NOVA-doc-
          2116. 5/30/07

          Comment: We note that the referenced document does not satisfactorily address
          the recommendation. However, we are not overly concerned about instabilities
          due to the experimental evidence of stable operation in the Main Injector with
          roughly the same intensities and kicker chambers.



                           Director’s CD-2/3a Review of the NOvA Project
                                          June 4 - 6, 2007
Page 32 of 78
                                                                 Issued July 5, 2007


Recommendation #3: There seems to be a trade-off between the number of
bunches “notched” out in the booster and the stringent requirements on rise- and
fall-time of the injection and gap clearing kickers – the specified 38 ns are based
on 2 missing bunches. The committee recommends evaluating this trade-off and
to prepare for a different number of “notched” bunches as a fallback solution.

Response: Decided to set number of bunches at 81 (of 84) and change kicker
specifications accordingly.1/15/07

Comment: The recommendation has been followed. The results look promising.

Recommendation #5: Since slip-stacking to full intensity cannot be tested early
in the RR, the committee recommends continuation of tests in the MI.

Response: Agree, will continue aggressively. Progress is shown in the MI
Upgrades Overview breakout talk. 5/26/07

Comment: The committee is satisfied that Fermilab has made considerable
progress in commissioning multi-bunch slip stacking in the MI. The improvement
in efficiency is impressive (see comments elsewhere in our report). We encourage
this work to be continued.

Recommendation #6: Due to the envisaged completely new type of operation of
the RR without the possibility of relevant tests before the end of the Tevatron run,
the committee recommends to consider at least fully simulating this new
operation, including longitudinal and transverse beam dynamics.

Response: Will address as many aspects as possible with simulations. 12/12/06

Comment: Progress had been made, and the results are encouraging and support
experimental data. However, we encourage the continuation of this work as well.

Recommendation #7: Concerning the change of BPM cables, the committee
recommends: Assign a coordinator now who will manage the 2009 shutdown
activities. Develop the installation plan, and examine what activities could be
done in earlier shutdowns to ease conflicts due to multiple personnel working in
the same areas and tunnel blockages. (Cables pulls and LCW pipe relocation are
two obvious candidates for doing early.)

Response: A shutdown coordinator will be assigned in a timely way for the
Accelerator Upgrades shutdown. Planning tasks for this shutdown are in the
resource loaded schedule. A shutdown plan and detailed schedule will be made.

Comment: The committee believes this recommendation has not yet been
followed, and continues to encourage its prompt implementation. We note that the
recommendation addresses “earlier” (i.e., imminent) shutdowns which is the
reason that we believe this should be done now.

                 Director’s CD-2/3a Review of the NOvA Project
                                June 4 - 6, 2007

                                                                         Page 33 of 78
Issued July 5, 2007


         Recommendation #9: It is unlikely that the losses of un-captured beam in the MI
         will be significantly reduced when 12 Booster batches are slipped stacked in the
         Recycler compared to now when 11batches are slip stacked in the MI. The
         collimation system for MI must be demonstrated to be effective for Phase I to be a
         viable design for producing 700 kW.

         Response: The collimator design has been finalized and all the collimator parts
         have been ordered and are expected to arrive by June 8th. We expect to have the
         primary collimator and the four secondary ones ready for installation in MI during
         the shutdown of summer 07.

         Comment: The response does not address the recommendation, but it is a
         requisite step. In general we were impressed by the loss analysis that is presented
         in the TDR, and therefore the theoretical demonstration of the adequacy of the
         collimator has been shown. This recommendation should remain open awaiting
         the experimental demonstration requested in the recommendation.

        Resources for ES&H coordination and radiological safety for the MI and Recycler
         upgrade have been identified.

        Plans are to start from the existing Shielding Assessments for the RR and MI and
         update them for NOvA operations.

Comments
   The technical risk of the proposed hardware items is quite small and the presented
    level of contingency is quite large for items that contain little innovation or
    required R&D. Part of the high contingency is a reflection that parts of the design
    have not been frozen. The project should finalize the conceptual design as soon as
    possible and then review the required contingency of the engineering designs.

        The main risk is the control and handling of the beam losses in the MI and RR
         with this greatly increased proton throughput. The recent success with
         demonstrating slip-stacking 4.6e13 protons in the MI with 92% efficiency
         ameliorates this risk substantially. The part of the beam loss that would be
         uncontrolled when the gap cleaner and collimator are installed is in line with the
         design goal for the NOvA upgrade. The beam loss from debunched beam that
         would be collected by the collimator is about 2.5 times larger than the design. It is
         likely that this will be reduced through improved performance of the Booster or
         could be covered by adequate margin of the collimator system.

        The NOvA beam power upgrade heavily depends on the success of the preceding
         “Proton Plan” upgrade. Since this constitutes a significant risk the project is
         planning to follow the progress of the proton plan and compare performance with
         realistic simulations and further targeted tests at the MI.

        The scope of the project does not include either commissioning of the upgraded
         facility with beam or system integration testing. However, the CD-4 Closeout

                          Director’s CD-2/3a Review of the NOvA Project
                                         June 4 - 6, 2007
Page 34 of 78
                                                                     Issued July 5, 2007


    Definition states that “upgrades and modifications are installed and ready for
    initial operation”. This requires complete system integration testing and this needs
    to be included in the scope of the project.

   We performed WBS drill-down exercises in several areas:

    o Drill down #1: RR injection and gap clearing kicker (WBS x.0.1.2.1)

       A prototype kicker is being built under WBS 1.0.1.2.1. The final kicker is
       being built under 2.0.1.2.1. with the power supplies being built under
       2.0.1.2.2. The cost of the kicker systems is about $8M including power
       supply. Following the WBS was straightforward and in the cases looked at,
       the BoE tables were consistent.

       The long lead time items, the kicker ceramic chambers, are being purchased
       now using Fermilab operating money. They will be tested and then put into a
       spares status. The project will buy them out of spares using project dollars
       when they are needed. To further mitigate the risk, the designs have been
       modified so that all kicker chambers are the same cross section.

    o Drill down #2: RR30 Remove Electron Cooling and Rebuild the section the
      FODO lattice

       Again the drill down was straight forward and passed all credibility tests that
       the committee could come up with. This drill down led to a look at a number
       of the other transfer line activities in the recycler as these were grouped in the
       WBS.

       Contingencies are relatively high for many of these items which are familiar
       to the Fermilab team doing the work. We discovered that this is due to fluidity
       of the lattice design. Thus the contingency expects an increased number of
       devices and their installation. As soon as the design is frozen this analysis
       should be redone.

    o Drill down #3: 53 MHz system for the RR (WBS 2.0.1.1.2)

       The drill-down was easy and didn’t reveal any missing items. Vendor quotes
       were obtained for the major items but no copies were attached to the BoE.
       The cavity fabrication is planned to be done in-house at a labor cost of ~$1M.
       Outside fabrication could be considered for this item. No system integration
       testing is included. This should be included in the required labor resources.

    o Drill down #4: RR BPM cable and board procurement and installation (WBS
      2.0.1.3.1)




                     Director’s CD-2/3a Review of the NOvA Project
                                    June 4 - 6, 2007

                                                                              Page 35 of 78
Issued July 5, 2007


                The major item is a large quantity of heliax cable. This is a catalog item with
                low associated contingency. Again no system integration testing is included.
                This should be included in the required labor resources.

         In all of these WBS areas the work is Fermilab in house work without major
         procurements that Fermilab has done many times and recently. The engineering
         estimates are therefore based on recent experience.

        The project is planning to build prototypes of a number of kickers including the
         gap cleaning kicker. The committee concurs that gap cleaning is important and
         NuMI and NOvA would benefit from installation of a gap cleaning system in the
         MI. Whether this could be the prototype, or the final magnet built early and then
         moved, should be looked at by the project. Even one year of operation in the Main
         Injector would justify this approach, and give credibility to the loss budget
         established for NOvA.

        The committee is concerned about the availability of technician manpower during
         the shutdowns, particularly the 8 month shutdown scheduled for October 2010.
         Our concerns relate to the possibility of people leaving Fermilab either by
         retiring, or because of fears related to Fermilab’s future as the Tevatron shuts
         down. This is something the project will have to monitor and remediate as the
         time approaches. We note this is related to several of the high risk factors in the
         accelerator area.

        The installation of the MI collimators during the 2007 shutdown will require
         relocating LCW and bus work. This work will be done in such a way as to also
         accommodate the future RR extraction line. Good planning! This approach is
         what is suggested in recommendation 5 (above), although not thoroughly
         implemented. The project should continue to look for similar opportunities to
         advance NOvA work into earlier shutdowns, and the assignment of shutdown
         coordinator would expedite this.

        At the time of project base-lining the physics design of the accelerator
         modifications should be frozen and changed only under configuration control if
         needed. This would freeze the component count and reduce the contingency in
         those areas. If possible this should be done before the CD-2 review.

        The committee is satisfied with the projects justifications for the CD-3a
         procurements under this WBS element.

        The shielding for MI and RR as described in the TDR seem to be sufficient for
         NOvA operations and activation of surface water and ground water is expected to
         remain within the applicable limits. Penetrations, labyrinths, drop hatches, will
         need to be re-evaluated.




                             Director’s CD-2/3a Review of the NOvA Project
                                            June 4 - 6, 2007
Page 36 of 78
                                                                        Issued July 5, 2007


      Residual activation of beam line components is an important consideration. Beam
       losses in Booster and MI have been managed with good results with determining
       source terms and addition of collimators.

Recommendations
   41. Include complete system integration testing in the scope of the project.

   42. Complete the conceptual design as soon as possible and then review the
       contingencies used in the engineering designs.

   43. Consider installing the prototype gap cleaner or the final magnet built early in the
       MI for early testing and use by NuMI. The gap cleaner can later be moved to RR.

   44. Consider minimizing beam losses in the Recycler as part of the design efforts.




                        Director’s CD-2/3a Review of the NOvA Project
                                       June 4 - 6, 2007

                                                                                  Page 37 of 78
Issued July 5, 2007


9.0       NuMI Beamline Upgrades (WBS 1/2.0)

9.1       Beamline/TargetModifications
Findings
    The NuMI upgrades total $5.3M under WBS 2.0.3. This is split roughly equally
      between M&S and labor.

         The upgrades are spread over four subtasks: the primary proton beamline; the
          target, baffle and hadron monitor; stripline extension and shielding
          reconfiguration; and utilities.

         The shielding reconfiguration is the largest subcomponent.

Comments
   The primary proton beam modifications include moving quadrupoles from the A-
    1 line, power supply upgrades, and improved profile monitors. These tasks are all
    straightforward and carry appropriate contingencies of ~25%. Upgrades to the
    NuMI extraction kicker carry a slightly higher contingency of 30%.

         The major components of the target and baffle are being fabricated by IHEP
          under an MOU. Overall contingency of 47% appears reasonable.

         The shielding modifications are still under study. Various options have been
          discussed, including restacking the blue blocks (not favored due to ALARA
          concerns); fabrication of a dummy module into which T-blocks are inserted (the
          most expensive option, and the one that was costed); a simplified option using
          different T-blocks but no dummy module. This last option appears to be simpler
          and cheaper, and is currently under discussion. The ongoing design effort may be
          an indication of continued difficulty in obtaining sufficient engineering and
          design support.

         The steel required for the shielding reconfiguration has been costed as ordinary
          steel at ~$1/lb. A substantial cost reduction would be realized if continuous cast
          salvage steel can be procured at about $0.20/lb.

         The committee notes that in an ideal world, the NuMI project - having already
          designated three locations for the second horn - would have also provided the
          special modules for these locations, thereby avoiding the need to do this
          reconfiguration in an already activated area.

         The utilities modifications are primarily upgrades of water systems to handle the
          higher power beam. The cost estimates for these appear reasonable.

Recommendations
   45. Pursue the use of continuous cast salvage steel for the shielding reconfiguration.
       Also see if some or all of the steel might be available on site at minimal cost.
                           Director’s CD-2/3a Review of the NOvA Project
                                          June 4 - 6, 2007
Page 38 of 78
                                                                           Issued July 5, 2007


9.2       Shielding
Findings
    Radiological safety issues for the NuMI beam line have been considered; the
      areas of concern include: prompt radiation levels outside of berm shielding,
      penetrations, labyrinths, bypass tunnel, concentration of radionuclides in
      groundwater and surface water, air emissions and dose due to residual
      radioactivity.

         The NuMI Shielding Assessment has been recently updated to 500 kW; the
          project recognizes that it needs to be updated further to address NOvA operations.

         Results from radiation measurements, empirical data and the experience gained in
          operation of NuMI form the basis that the project has used to evaluate the
          radiological conditions that can be expected during NOvA operation.

         The earth shielding thickness for NuMI extraction line is sufficient for NOvA
          operation for normal and accident scenarios.

         Estimated concentration of radionuclides in groundwater, surface water, and dose
          to air emission are extrapolated from NuMI operations and are below applicable
          limits.

         Fermilab seems to have made good progress in understanding the issue of
          detectable concentration of tritium in the surface water.

         Residual activation levels and personnel exposures during the shutdowns have
          been estimated. The activation levels in the target hall are already significant for
          NuMI and will increase for NOvA.

         NuMI is planning several measures to minimize dose to personnel from activated
          components and materials. These are plans for upgrade of Work Cell; and there is
          a Radioactive Component Removal Plan to address short-term storage of
          components.

Comments
   While the upgrades in the NuMI target hall are listed as off-project, their
    successful completion is essential for NOvA.

Recommendations
   46. Prepare a status report on the issue of tritium in the surface water, and discuss
       why this issue does not pose a risk to the project when beam power to NuMI is
       increased.




                           Director’s CD-2/3a Review of the NOvA Project
                                          June 4 - 6, 2007

                                                                                   Page 39 of 78
Issued July 5, 2007


10.0 Cost
Findings
    The total project cost estimate (with an 18 kiloton Far Detector) is $297.4 million.
      This includes $227.8 million in fully-loaded base costs and $69.6 million (or
      31%) in contingency.
      o Construction component: $217.2 million
          Base = $161.2 million; contingency = $56 million
         o OPC component (accelerator/detector R&D, coop agreement, etc.): $80.2
           million
            Base = $66.6 million; contingency = $13.6 million

        For reference, the TPC estimate presented at the CD-1 review (March 2006) was
         $273.4 million, including $200.9 million in fully-loaded base costs and $72.5
         million (or 36%) in contingency.
         o Construction component: $259.8 million
              Base = $188.6 million; contingency = $71.3 million
         o OPC component: $13.6 million
            Base = $12.3 million; contingency = $1.3 million

        The current estimate includes Accelerator and NuMI upgrades (ANU),
         Accelerator and Detector R&D, and funds for the Cooperative Agreement with U-
         Minnesota to construct the Ash River site and buildings. The project team has
         updated and refined various line item costs. Some deliverables (e.g., far detector
         site and building) have been shifted from construction to OPC.

        The project has a detailed WBS that is used to describe and capture the required
         work. Estimated costs are defined at appropriately low levels in the WBS.

        The project has well-defined contingency analysis rules that are applied by the
         PM, Deputy, and Level 2 managers. Distinct rules are defined for labor, M&S
         and schedule contingency.

        The project has implemented a Basis of Estimate (BoE) process that is used
         across the project. To date, 328 BoE documents have been prepared. Each
         document is assigned a unique identifier number, versioned for configuration
         control, and stored for easy access in the online NOvA document database, Doc-
         DB. References to BoE documents are contained in the WBS. These appear
         mostly at the deliverable level and are intended to provide a quick reference to
         cost basis documentation.

        The cost estimate has been developed and revised using a combined top-
         down/bottoms-up approach by the project office staff and Level 2 managers.


                          Director’s CD-2/3a Review of the NOvA Project
                                         June 4 - 6, 2007
Page 40 of 78
                                                                        Issued July 5, 2007


Comments
   The cost estimate was very recently updated by the project; the version presented
    for review was less than 48 hours old. The project team acknowledges that it has
    had limited time to scrub the cost estimate for accuracy and completeness. The
    Project Manager noted that through a quick review by “a few people for a few
    hours”, the project team has already found approximately $6.5 million in errors
    that incorrectly increase the project cost.

      The new cost estimate includes a $10 million increase to reflect new pricing
       information on two cost elements: the HVAC ventilation upgrade for the Far
       Detector hall and APDs from Hamamatsu. A $10 million change based on two
       line items indicates a certain level of volatility in the cost estimate.

      The project has identified 4 major cost drivers that account for 50% of the total
       project cost. These include the Far Detector Hall, Liquid Scintillator, PVC
       Extrusions, and WLS fiber. Furthermore, we heard that small changes can have
       large effects due to volumes required (e.g., $333K change in project cost for every
       $1/barrel change in the price of crude oil). We commend the project for
       identifying these large cost drivers and for applying appropriate contingency to
       address the risk. The project should continue to monitor these areas, as well as
       other project areas for new cost drivers that may appear as project construction
       progresses.

      The review committee spent a short time drilling down through the WBS, in an
       attempt to independently determine accuracy and completeness. A number of
       WBS elements were selected at random for the drill-down exercise. In nearly
       every case, problems were identified in the cost estimate. Theses included
       omissions in costs, undocumented cost bases, and links to BoEs that were
       incorrect. The fact that a quick drill-down uncovered numerous problems
       suggests that further work is needed by the project to produce an accurate and
       defensible cost estimate suitable for baseline consideration.

      In establishing relationships with sole source vendors for PVC extrusion
       production, the project should clearly define ownership of tooling (e.g., dies) if
       the tooling is paid for using project funds. This may preclude future cost and
       schedule issues should problems arise in the vendor relationship.

      A reasonable number of BoEs have been developed by the project and used to
       develop the cost estimate. Given limited time and resources, a graded approach
       was applied to first develop BoEs for the more costly items (guidance was given
       to focus first on items with estimated cost > $1M). However, a quick sampling of
       BoE documents revealed discrepancies and some duplication (e.g., same
       information contained in the BoEs for WBS elements 2.9.4 and 2.9.4.3). The
       project office should review all BoEs for accuracy and completeness, and verify
       that they are correctly matched to line items in the WBS and cost estimate.
       Recognizing the amount of work required by the project staff in a short time
                        Director’s CD-2/3a Review of the NOvA Project
                                       June 4 - 6, 2007

                                                                                Page 41 of 78
Issued July 5, 2007


         period, the committee suggests that the project consider seeking additional
         resources to help with the BoE review process. This may free up Level 2
         managers to concentrate on further scrubbing the cost estimate. Finally, over
         time, BoEs should be developed for all deliverables in the WBS.

        An overall contingency of 31% for the TPC appears reasonable. A quick review
         of contingency levels in various parts of the WBS suggests there may be some
         inconsistency in the manner in which contingency values are being set by the
         various Level 2 managers. In addition, there are concerns that the level of
         contingency established for some subprojects (e.g., Liquid Scintillator and PVC
         Extrusions) may be on the low side given volatility in the commodity markets. In
         the process of scrubbing the cost estimate, the project office should review
         contingency levels for adequacy and consistency.

        The project acknowledges, and the committee concurs, that volatility in
         commodity mineral oil prices imposes a cost risk on the project. A reasonable
         model has been developed and implemented to project the cost of mineral oil
         based on historical data, DOE price projections, and industry indices. The current
         cost estimate is based on a unit cost of $2.98/gallon, based on December 2005
         vendor quotes for 6.6 million gallons. New price data is available as of May
         2007, with a quoted price of $3.33/gallon for 3.7 million gallons. The project
         showed that indexing works in the existing model, using 2005 data, but the
         committee suggests updating the model with the more recent May 2007 data.

        The current plan includes two factory assembly operations: a Fermilab factory
         that will perform incoming QA on the PVC extrusions and glue together (2) 16-
         cell extrusions into 32-cell extrusion modules; and a Minnesota factory that will
         install fibers into the modules, glue on manifolds, and perform QA (fiber
         throughput and leak tests). The current production model requires the
         transportation of extrusions from the vendor in Manitowoc, WI, south to
         Fermilab, then north to Minnesota. The cost estimate includes 78 trips south at
         ~$4800/trip and 76 trips north at a cost of ~$7100/trip (including contingency),
         for a total estimated transportation cost of $914,000. Combining the two
         operations into a single factory in Minnesota could result in significant potential
         transportation cost savings, as the extrusions could be shipped directly from the
         Manitowoc vendor to the assembly factory. A careful analysis would need to be
         completed to accurately determine the extent of the cost savings, but a quick look
         at a map and a simple back-of-the-envelope calculation suggests that the savings
         may be as high as $600,000. Combining factory operations might also result in
         further cost savings through economies of scale.

        The review committee evaluated NOvA’s cost and contingency estimate
         spreadsheet and documented their assessment in the notes field of the spreadsheet
         in Appendix A.




                          Director’s CD-2/3a Review of the NOvA Project
                                         June 4 - 6, 2007
Page 42 of 78
                                                                       Issued July 5, 2007


Recommendations
   47. Complete a thorough and rigorous review of the newly revised cost estimate to
       verify the accuracy and completeness of the June 2007 estimate prior to baseline
       consideration.

   48. Review the cost basis for each element in the WBS to ensure that 1) BoE
       documents are correctly matched with WBS line items; and 2) each BoE contains
       the appropriate and necessary information to support the cost estimate.

   49. Verify that peer and independent design reviews are incorporated into the WBS at
       the appropriate level and properly costed.

   50. Review the level of contingency assigned to WBS line items by Level 2 managers
       to ensure that labor, M&S and schedule contingency rules are being applied
       uniformly across the project.

   51. Update the price projection model for mineral oil, using May 2007 vendor cost
       data of $3.33/gallon.

   52. Perform and document a cost-benefit analysis to determine the potential cost
       savings of combining PVC module assembly production into a single factory site.




                       Director’s CD-2/3a Review of the NOvA Project
                                      June 4 - 6, 2007

                                                                               Page 43 of 78
Issued July 5, 2007


11.0 Schedule
Findings
    The schedule presented by NOvA reflects the scope of building and installing a
      18kton detector at a Total Project Cost (TPC) of $297.4M. The schedule
      presented for baseline does not meet the DOE guidance to not exceed a TPC of
      $260M

        The NOvA presented a Resource Loaded Schedule (RLS) in the scheduling
         software tool Open Plan from Deltek.
         o The schedule presented has 6,126 lines, with 4,394 lowest level activities and
             474 milestones.
         o The schedule has a total of 89 milestones without a Predecessor or a
             Successor. (20 without a Predecessor and 69 without a Successor)
         o The schedule has a total of 862 activities without a Predecessor and/or a
             Successor. (41 without a Predecessor, 441 without a Successor and 380
             without a Predecessor or Successor)
         o The schedule has a total of 347 activities and milestones that have constraint
             dates (target dates) assigned. (209 activities and 138 milestones)
         o The schedule has a total of 1,138 activities that have a duration ≥ 60 work
             days.
        CD-4 Milestone completion date is 4th Quarter 2013 with a projected schedule
         completion date of June 2013, which has a float of approximately 7 months.

        Per NOvA’s Preliminary Project Execution Plan (PPEP) and Preliminary Project
         Management Plan (PPMP), a tiered milestone system is to be used, which
         includes Critical Decision, Level 1, 2 and 3 milestones. The NOvA schedule has
         474 milestones with 319 milestones without the tier identified.

        The NOvA schedule does include some design review activities. NOvA’s Project
         Engineer has a plan for engineering design reviews, which needs to be uniformly
         implemented and included in the schedule.

        Schedule contingency is being applied by building it into specific milestones and
         then monitoring the float. The schedule contingency process is identified in the
         Contingency Analysis Rules for NOvA document section 2.5.

        Some Resource Leveling has been performed on the NOvA schedule.

        No one-page master schedule for the entire project was available or a one-page
         schedule for the individual subprojects including the critical path.

        328 Bases of Estimates (BoEs) were available at the time of the review.
         Guidance for initial generation of BoE’s was to concentrate on items $1M or
         greater. The BoE’s for the Accelerator & NuMI Upgrades subproject have been

                         Director’s CD-2/3a Review of the NOvA Project
                                        June 4 - 6, 2007
Page 44 of 78
                                                                       Issued July 5, 2007


       completed and the other subprojects are at different stages of BoE development.
       A standard form for documenting the BoE was used and the completed forms
       ,with associated reference documents, are stored and controlled in NOvA’s docdb
       repository. Binders with BoEs were available during the review. Some NOvA
       team members saw the BoE binders for the first time in the review breakout
       sessions. NOvA plans to continue to create BoE’s for the other activities that do
       not presently have one. There are some existing BoE’s that need the
       supplemental documentation and the numbers (hours/dollars) need to be
       reconciled between the BoE and the schedule.

      The WBS Dictionary exists in the Draft Technical Design Report (TDR) Section
       7 for Level 2 and 3 of the WBS. WBS Definitions exist in the NOvA Open Plan
       Schedule that gives more detail than the WBS Dictionary. These definitions are
       at varies levels of the WBS from Level 3 to Level 6.

      Milestone Definitions exists in the NOvA Schedule for the Accelerator & NuMI
       Upgrades subproject but not for the other subprojects.

      A draft NOvA Risk Management Plan document exists and per the NOvA Deputy
       Project Manager it has been partially implemented. The Accelerator & NuMI
       Upgrades and Far Detector Site & Building subprojects have completed the more
       detailed bottom-up risk analysis. The other subprojects have performed a top-
       down risk assessment that identified the high-level key risks. The project
       recognizes that the more detailed bottom-up risk analysis needs to be done by the
       Level 2 Managers. The currently identified risks are recorded in a Excel Risk
       Registry and will be migrated into WelcomRisk software by Deltek.

Comments
   The NOvA project recognizes that the schedule needs to be scrubbed to validate
    the content since the schedule was completed less than 48 hours before the start of
    the review. The review committee agrees with that assessment. Some of the
    obvious areas that need to be scrubbed are as follows:
    o Schedule mechanics which includes appropriately assigning predecessors and
        successors to activities and milestones and minimize the number of constraints
        (target dates) used. With the lack of predecessors/successors and having
        constraint dates the true detailed critical path may not be reflected in the
        schedule.
    o Evaluate the long duration activities to determine if they can be broken up into
        small duration tasks with specific deliverables or that there are adequate
        existing milestones to measure the long activities’ progress. This is import to
        improve accuracy of status and measuring progress. Also, it is critical when
        determining on how to earn the value for Earned Value Reporting.
    o Evaluate if the appropriate number of milestones exists so progress can be
        monitored and assign the milestone tier level.


                       Director’s CD-2/3a Review of the NOvA Project
                                      June 4 - 6, 2007

                                                                               Page 45 of 78
Issued July 5, 2007


         o Evaluate if the engineering review activities exist in the schedule and
             determine if additional ones need to be added and resource loaded.
         o Utilize WBS Definitions notes field that exists in the schedule to further
             define the lower level WBS activities. This supplements the high-level WBS
             Dictionary.
         o Complete Milestone Definitions for all the project milestones.
         o Incorporate any activities and associated cost that result from mitigation plans
             that are identified after the more detailed bottom-up risk assessment has been
             completed.
         o After completing scrubbing the schedule for the items listed above, assess the
             resource need vs. the availability of resources and perform resource leveling
             where needed. This helps in increasing the likelihood that the activities can be
             completed in the timeframe scheduled and minimize variances in Earned
             Value Reporting.
        In addition to scrubbing the existing schedule for errors, revising the schedule to
         bring the TPC to meet the OMB guidance, not to exceed $260M, is a significant
         effort on its own.

        The schedule that shows the critical path for entire project was not available to the
         committee via the webpage, but one was generated when requested. A detailed
         critical path for the entire project and by subproject should be made available to
         the review committee ahead of the review. Additionally a one page master
         schedule with critical path should be generated and available to the review
         committee.

        The NOvA project has created many more BoEs since the Director’s CD-1
         Review. The standard BoE form that is now being used has greatly improved
         consistency of the type of information to be included in the BoEs. Additional
         BoEs still need to be generated and existing BoEs need to be validated to insure
         that the BoEs and the schedule match.

        The content of the WBS Dictionary appears to be sufficient at Level 2 and 3 of
         the WBS. It is strongly suggested that the WBS Definition notes field are utilized
         in the schedule to describe the activities at lower levels of the WBS be more
         consistent. This type of detail helps to insure that there is a common
         understanding of the work to be performed by the person that generated the
         activities and the person that has to do the work. It also helps when the person
         that generated the activities is no longer around to explain what was meant by the
         short activity description.

        The use of milestone definitions that exist in the schedule for the Accelerator &
         NuMI Upgrades subproject should be applied to the entire project. By defining
         and documenting what action(s) need to be completed to status the milestone as
         complete will be more clearly understood by more people than the person that
         generated the milestone. This is especially important when milestones are being

                          Director’s CD-2/3a Review of the NOvA Project
                                         June 4 - 6, 2007
Page 46 of 78
                                                                        Issued July 5, 2007


       used to monitor project progress and especially if the completion of the milestone
       triggers to earn value as part of an Earned Value Management System (EVMS).

      The current implementation of Risk Management by NOvA appears to be
       following NOvA’s Risk Management Plan, but at the current baseline stage a
       complete risk assessment with mitigation plans needs to be completed for the
       entire project. This includes a bottom-up and the top-down assessment for all
       parts of the project.

Recommendations
   The following recommendations are to be completed prior to the DOE CD-2/3a
   Review.

   53. The schedule is to be scrubbed to reduce cost, including modifying the detector
       size, in order to meet the OMB guidance not to exceed a TPC of $260M.

   54. To insure schedule quality, the schedule is to be scrubbed for the items listed in
       the first Comment of the schedule section (11) of this report.

   55. Complete the detailed bottom-up risk assessment for the entire project, which
       includes mitigation plans. Incorporate the mitigation activities in the cost and
       schedule where appropriate.

   56. Assess at which level(s) in the WBS the BoEs should be generated. Complete all
       the BoE’s for the project. Compare the content of the BoEs with the data in the
       schedule and insure they match (Similar Recommendation issued from the
       Director’s CD-1 Review of NOvA).

   57. Generate and maintain a one-page master schedule with the critical path.




                        Director’s CD-2/3a Review of the NOvA Project
                                       June 4 - 6, 2007

                                                                                Page 47 of 78
Issued July 5, 2007


12.0 Project Management (WBS 1.9 & 2.10)
Findings
    An overview of the project and cost drivers was given by project management.
      With the inclusion of the ANU subproject there are now 10 fully staffed
      subprojects, including the one for project management, which has a cost of
      $5.7M.

        The project presented the review committee with the documents required for DOE
         CD-2 review

         o TDR, EA, AS, QA, RM, etc.

        The PPEP and PPMP needed for CD-1 were made available

        No single page master schedule with critical path was shown for either the overall
         project or the subprojects.

        Formal change control is planned but not currently implemented.

        Earned value reporting not yet implemented in monthly reports, which have been
         done for some time in narrative form.

        No draft MOU’s or SOW’s were shown to the committee

        The project office staffing is projected to be 7.5 FTE’s in FY’08, and 8.0 FTE’s in
         FY’09-FY13. There is no contingency on PO labor, and no costs included for
         external expertise for consulting or reviews.

        No response to previous directors CD-1 review recommendations was shown.

Comments
   The project should be commended for their continued rapid progress towards
    baselining the NOvA project. The project team is a strong and experienced one,
    and they have all the tools in place to successfully manage the project. There are
    many requirements for a baseline review, and it is clear the team is aware of their
    responsibilities and has worked hard to meet them. The Technical Design Report
    and other project management documents are largely complete, but will need
    additional efforts to make them ready for a baseline review. The project team
    presented their materials in a relatively unified format, and the website
    organization was a significant improvement over previous reviews.
    Unfortunately, the review team was somewhat hindered in preparations for the
    review by many of the review materials only becoming available the morning of
    the review. This will probably not be acceptable for a DOE baseline review. The
    production of monthly reports on a routine basis is excellent, and needs only the
    addition of earned value reporting to be in the final format needed for the duration


                          Director’s CD-2/3a Review of the NOvA Project
                                         June 4 - 6, 2007
Page 48 of 78
                                                                    Issued July 5, 2007


    of the project. The project team did an excellent job of answering all the
    reviewers’ questions.

   Management of the Ash river construction has dual authority lines in the
    organization chart shown. Project planning depends on an MOU between
    Fermilab and the University of Minnesota which has not yet been drafted.
    Responsibilities of the Project Manager and the Federal Program Manager would
    benefit from additional clarification. Fermilab, project management, University
    of Minnesota, and DOE roles and responsibilities, especially with regards to
    safety and contingency utilization, would benefit from such an MOU.

   The PPEP scope range showing a 20kt detector and a 6 year run should be
    updated as needed and developed into a PEP prior to any baseline review. The
    DOE Dep. Project Director is shown in the text but is not in the organization
    chart, and that should be corrected.

   The PPMP should be updated to reflect the current proposed baseline, references
    to the PMSD should be deleted, and it should be developed into a PMP prior to a
    baseline review.

   It is important to put at least draft MOU’s and SOW’s in place soon.
    Understanding of the resources being planned on by the project, and committed
    by the collaborating institutions (including Fermilab) will avoid
    misunderstandings and put the project labor planning on more solid ground.

   The Environmental Assessment covers both Fermilab and Minnesota and includes
    information for up to 1.5 MW of beam power. Figure 4.2 says NuMI tunnel is
    650ft below mean sea level, which does not sound right.

   The Risk Management Plan is appropriate for this project, but the implementation
    should rapidly become more complete. The Risk Registry formulation is
    adequate, and the migration to WelcomRisk is a good move. The Level 2
    managers have not had time to complete risk assessments for their subprojects.

   The Project Engineer has a good plan for engineering design reviews, which need
    to be uniformly communicated to lower level managers and shown in the RLS.
    Some funding in 2.10 will probably be needed to pay for these kinds of reviews if
    they are to be successful and widely used.

   The Project has a large number of procurements and is working closely and well
    with Fermilab’s procurement people. The addition of an expediter in the project
    office to work with them and the project might reduce schedule slippages.

   It was observed that there is inconsistency on how final design activities are
    handled between detector and ANU parts of the schedule. The activities can be
    found in the either WBS 1 (R&D) or 2 (Construction) of the schedule and may be
    R&D or MIE funds. Also, it was not clear if and how contingency was applied to
                    Director’s CD-2/3a Review of the NOvA Project
                                   June 4 - 6, 2007

                                                                            Page 49 of 78
Issued July 5, 2007


         these activities. The project should evaluate and address any inconsistencies with
         where the design activities are located in the schedule, funding type and the
         application of contingency and/or be quite explicit when describing these final
         design activities for various part of the project.

Recommendations
   58. It is important to have a draft MOU begun between Fermilab and the University
       of Minnesota to supplement the CA.

    59. Prepare draft MOU’s and SOW’s for institutions planning on doing work for the
        project so that responsibilities and labor resources commitments are clearly
        understood.

    60. Finalize both PEP and PMP prior to a baseline review.

    61. There needs to be detailed balance of funding and cost by FY by the baseline
        review in the project management documentation.

    62. The project office needs to work with the L2 managers to complete the
        implementation of the Risk Management Plan.

    63. Complete the TDR and scrub all CD-2 related documentation to reflect the current
        project status and scope.

    64. Consider adding an expediter to the Project office.

    65. Include costs in WBS 2.10 for external reviewers/consultants, labor contingency,
        and an expediter.

    66. Preparation of materials for the baseline review should begin early enough that
        the reviewers have adequate time to prepare for the review.




                          Director’s CD-2/3a Review of the NOvA Project
                                         June 4 - 6, 2007
Page 50 of 78
                                                                         Issued July 5, 2007


13.0 Charge Questions
Technical
13.1 Are the technical specifications clearly stated and documented?
The technical specifications are clearly stated and documented in the TDR.

13.2 Can the design be built? Does the design meet the technical specifications? Is
    it a reasonable design?
The accelerator and NUMI upgrade design meets the technical specification, is
reasonable and can be built.

The detector technology chosen is reasonable, very well optimized and meets the
technical specifications, with the exception of the fiducial mass for the far detector which
is driven by cost considerations.

13.3 Does the baseline design meet the project’s objectives (mission need)?
The baseline design meets the project objectives, however we note that cost driven
reductions in the fiducial mass have decreased the physics sensitivity by 20-30% unless
the running time is increased beyond six years.

Cost
13.4 Is the Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) appropriate for the project scope?
The WBS is well-developed and broad in scope. It encompasses all significant project
activities and appears to have an appropriate level of detail to accurately develop the
project cost estimate and a realistic timeline for project completion; and to establish a
baseline against which to track future performance. The WBS is still undergoing active
development as the cost estimate is revised and scrubbed.

13.5 Do the cost estimates for each WBS (or cost) element have a sound
    documented basis and are they reasonable?
The project is still in the process of documenting the cost basis for all WBS elements. At
the time of the review, Basis of Estimate (BoE) documents had been developed for 328 of
the WBS elements. These BoEs contain information such as assumptions, labor
estimates, commodity price projections, and vendor quotes. The project has taken a
graded approach in documenting the basis for the cost estimate, by initially focusing on
generating BoEs for items with estimated costs of $1M or more. BoEs for some
subprojects (Accelerator and NuMI Upgrades) are substantially complete. BoEs for other
subprojects are in various stages of development. There are no BoEs for remaining R&D
activities. The information contained in many of the existing BoEs seems reasonable, but
further scrubbing by the project is needed to validate the accuracy of the information in
the BoEs, to verify that the information is sufficient to provide a reasonable basis for the
cost, and to verify that they are accurately mapped to deliverables in the WBS.




                         Director’s CD-2/3a Review of the NOvA Project
                                        June 4 - 6, 2007

                                                                                 Page 51 of 78
Issued July 5, 2007


13.6 Does an obligation profile exist? How does it compare with the funding
    guidance?
The Project Manager presented the current cost profile for the project. The cost profile
shows projected costs on an annual basis, compared to the DOE funding profile. Project
costs through FY10 fall within the funding guidance profile. Projects costs in FY11-13
exceed the funding guidance profile. This reflects the fact that the current TPC estimate
of $297.4 million exceeds the DOE funding guidance to not exceed a TPC of $260
million.

Schedule
13.7 Is the schedule well developed and appropriately structured by specifying
    relationships, predecessors, successors, critical path, resource loaded, etc?
The schedule is well developed for a TPC of $297.4M but it can not be assessed for a
schedule that is required to have a TPC of ≤ $260M. The schedule needs be scrubbed to
correct some structural issues and a detailed bottom-up Risk Analysis completed before it
can be determined if the schedule is adequately developed.

13.8 Are the durations for the activities and overall schedule reasonable and
    achievable with the assumed resources?
One forth of the activities has duration’s ≥60 work days, which is not a desired state. The
project needs to evaluate if the activities can be broken down to small tasks with specific
deliverables or if adequate milestones exist that can demonstrate progress. After
completion of the detailed bottom-up risk assessment is completed and changes
incorporated and the schedule is scrubbed to meet the $260M TPC guidance, an
assessment can then be performed to say if the schedule is reasonable and achievable.

13.9 Does the schedule contain appropriate levels of milestones, sufficient quantity
    of milestones for tracking progress and do they appear to be achievable?
There are 474 milestones in the NOvA schedule. By shear number of milestones
sufficient quantities may exists for tracking progress, but since 319 milestones have not
been assigned as a Level 2 or 3 tier the analysis could not be completed.

13.10 Does the schedule include activities for design reviews, including assessment of
    the design’s readiness for procuring prototypes, preproduction and production
    materials?
The schedule does include some activities for design reviews, but the Project Engineer
has a plan for engineering design reviews, which need to be uniformly implemented and
included in the schedule.

Management
13.11 Is there an appropriate management organizational structure in place to
   accomplish the design and construction?
The management structure is complete, and should be adequate to manage the design and
construction. The University of Minnesota management of the Ash River site was not
looked into in detail, but they have extensive experience in construction projects, and we

                         Director’s CD-2/3a Review of the NOvA Project
                                        June 4 - 6, 2007
Page 52 of 78
                                                                         Issued July 5, 2007


assume that if the roles are responsibilities are clearly defined that successful completion
of that part of the project should be accomplished.

13.12 Is the organization structure well documented, responsibilities defined and
   appropriate for the scope of work?
Yes

13.13 Are there adequate staffing resources available or planned for this effort?
Yes, addition of an expediter to the project office would be beneficial.

13.14 Is there a funding plan available or proposed to meet the resource
   requirements to realize the project?
No, the funding profile does not match the resource requirements presented by the project

13.15 Has a Risk Plan been developed, risks identified, risks analyzed, risk responses
   planned/implemented, risk monitoring/control process established and do they
   seem appropriate?
There is a risk management plan in place, but it is not fully implemented by the project.

Procurement
13.16 Have the critical procurements been identified and are they included in the
    schedule with adequate lead time built in?
Critical Procurements have been identified. However the terms procure, purchase, etc. are
used to identify different sets of activities in the procurement process. In some cases it
appears that the activity includes production or delivery. Standard procurement
milestones should be employed for consistency

13.17 Have critical make vs. buy decisions been evaluated in conjunction with the
    scope and is that reflected in the baseline cost estimate, schedule and technical
    risk plan?
Since the last director’s review the decision to change strategy from in-house scintillator
mixing to contracting for the service was made. Is it possible to have the extruder
undertake the initial assembly tasks of gluing 2 16-cell extrusions together and final end
cuts at the extrusion factory before skidding/wrapping/shipping?

13.18 Are the Project designs final and procurement packages prepared to the
    degree appropriate to order materials and initiate construction as scheduled?
All of the major commodities have been ordered in small batches, and the formulations
adjusted to a degree that they can be contracted for. Procurement plans should be
developed for each major procurement which specifies procurement milestones,
acquisition strategy (competitive/sole source), phased funding, options, blankets with
delivery orders, sources etc.      The construction (3a) procurements are sufficiently
defined, while designs for equipment for far detector assembly has not been completed.



                         Director’s CD-2/3a Review of the NOvA Project
                                        June 4 - 6, 2007

                                                                                 Page 53 of 78
Issued July 5, 2007


Appendices
Cost Estimates

Charge

Agenda

Report Outline and Reviewer Writing Assignments

Reviewer Assignments for Breakout Sessions

Reviewers’ Contact Information

Participant List

Table of Recommendations




                      Director’s CD-2/3a Review of the NOvA Project
                                     June 4 - 6, 2007
Page 54 of 78
                                                                                                                                                            Issued July 5, 2007



                                                                                    Appendix A



                                                                             Cost Estimates
                             NOvA’s Cost Estimate for the Director’s CD-2/3a Review of the NOvA Project
                                                          June 4 – 6, 2007

                                                                                                      NOvA 's Cost Estimate AY $M
                                                         Estimated Cost (with indirects)             Contingency Estimate              Contingency %            Total
           WBS                    Items                    M&S      Labor1      Total               M&S     Labor1    Total         M&S   Labor1    Total       Cost
          2.0      Accelerator & NuMI Upgrades           $ 13.2       $    20.5    $ 33.7       $      4.4   $     6.5   $   11.0   34%      32%     33%    $     44.7
          2.1      Far Detector Site and Building        $     -      $     1.9    $   1.9      $        -   $     0.5   $    0.5    0%      24%     24%    $      2.4
          2.2      Liquid Scintillator                   $ 23.0       $     0.4    $ 23.4       $      6.1   $     0.3   $    6.5   27%      87%     28%    $     29.8
          2.3      Wave-Length-Shifting Fiber            $ 12.3       $     1.2    $ 13.6       $      3.4   $     0.1   $    3.6   28%      10%     26%    $     17.1
          2.4      PVC Extrusions                        $ 28.4       $     1.7    $ 30.1       $      8.0   $     0.6   $    8.6   28%      35%     28%    $     38.7
          2.5      PVC Modules                           $   6.8      $     8.6    $ 15.4       $      2.0   $     3.7   $    5.7   29%      43%     37%    $     21.1
 TEC      2.6      Electronics Production                $ 14.3       $     1.1    $ 15.4       $      6.2   $     0.6   $    6.8   43%      53%     44%    $     22.2
          2.7      Data Acquisition System               $   1.6      $     1.8    $   3.4      $      0.4   $     0.5   $    0.9   25%      29%     27%    $      4.3
          2.8      Near Detector Assembly                $   3.6      $     0.4    $   4.1      $      1.5   $     0.2   $    1.7   40%      50%     41%    $      5.7
          2.9      Far Detector Assembly                 $   7.9      $     6.0    $ 13.9       $      4.8   $     6.0   $   10.8   61%     100%     78%    $     24.8
          2.10     Project Management                    $   0.6      $     5.7    $   6.3      $      0.1   $       -   $    0.1   25%       0%      2%    $      6.4
                             Subtotal Construction       $ 111.7      $    49.5    $ 161.2      $     36.9   $    19.1   $   56.0   33%      39%     35%    $    217.2


          R&D - Accelerator                               $     1.4   $      7.8   $     9.3    $      0.4   $     3.0   $    3.4   30%     38%      37%    $     12.7
          R&D - Detector                                  $     4.1   $      5.0   $     9.1    $      0.2   $     0.1   $    0.3   5%       1%      3%     $       9.3
 OPC Cooperative Agreement                                $    46.9   $        -   $    46.9    $      9.3   $       -   $    9.3   20%      0%      20%    $     56.2
          Operating                                       $     0.2   $      1.2   $     1.3    $      0.1   $     0.6   $    0.7   36%     51%      49%    $       2.0
                                          Total OPC:      $    52.6   $    14.0    $    66.6    $     10.0   $     3.6   $   13.6   19%     26%      20%    $     80.2


                                                  TPC: $ 164.3        $    63.5    $ 227.8      $     46.9   $    22.7   $   69.6   29%     36%      31%    $    297.4
Notes:
 1
     Labor costs presented here include all project labor from Fermilab, other DOE facilities and Universities.




                                                              Director’s CD-2/3a Review of the NOvA Project
                                                                              June 4-6, 2007
                                                                                                                                                                          Page 55 of 78
Issued July 5, 2007



                                   Review Committee’s Cost Estimate for the Director’s CD-2/3a Review of the NOvA Project
                                                                      June 4 – 6, 2007
                                                                                                           Committee 's Cost Estimate AY $M
                                                                 Estimated Cost (with indirects)            Contingency Estimate            Contingency %                 Total
          WBS                     Items                          M&S        Labor1           Total         M&S     Labor1      Total    M&S    Labor1    Total            Cost
         2.0      Accelerator & NuMI Upgrades                $ 13.2        $    20.5     $ 33.7        $      4.4    $     6.5     $     11.0      34%    32%   33%   $     44.7
         2.1      Far Detector Site and Building             $     -       $     1.9     $   1.9       $        -    $     0.5     $      0.5       0%    24%   24%   $      2.4
         2.2      Liquid Scintillator                        $ 23.0        $     0.4     $ 23.4        $      6.1    $     0.3     $      6.5      27%    87%   28%   $     29.8
         2.3      Wave-Length-Shifting Fiber                 $ 12.3        $     1.2     $ 13.6        $      3.4    $     0.1     $      3.6      28%    10%   26%   $     17.1
         2.4      PVC Extrusions                             $ 28.4        $     1.7     $ 30.1        $      8.0    $     0.6     $      8.6      28%    35%   28%   $     38.7
         2.5      PVC Modules                                $   6.8       $     8.6     $ 15.4        $      2.0    $     3.7     $      5.7      29%    43%   37%   $     21.1
  TEC    2.6      Electronics Production                     $ 14.3        $     1.1     $ 15.4        $      6.2    $     0.6     $      6.8      43%    53%   44%   $     22.2
         2.7      Data Acquisition System                    $   1.6       $     1.8     $   3.4       $      0.4    $     0.5     $      0.9      25%    29%   27%   $      4.3
         2.8      Near Detector Assembly                     $   3.6       $     0.4     $   4.1       $      1.5    $     0.2     $      1.7      40%    50%   41%   $      5.7
         2.9      Far Detector Assembly                      $   7.9       $     6.0     $ 13.9        $      4.8    $     6.0     $     10.8      61%   100%   78%   $     24.8
         2.10     Project Management                         $   0.6       $     5.7     $   6.3       $      0.1    $       -     $      0.1      25%     0%    2%   $      6.4
                            Subtotal Construction            $ 111.7       $    49.5     $ 161.2       $     36.9    $    19.1     $     56.0      33%    39%   35%   $    217.2

     R&D - Accelerator                                       $      1.4    $     7.8     $      9.3    $      0.4    $      3.0    $      3.4      30%   38%    37%   $     12.7
     R&D - Detector                                          $      4.1    $     5.0     $      9.1    $      0.2    $      0.1    $      0.3       5%    1%     3%   $      9.3
 OPC Cooperative Agreement                                   $     46.9    $       -     $     46.9    $      9.3    $        -    $      9.3      20%    0%    20%   $     56.2
     Operating                                               $      0.2    $     1.2     $      1.3    $      0.1    $      0.6    $      0.7      36%   51%    49%   $      2.0
                                           Total OPC:        $     52.6    $    14.0     $     66.6    $     10.0    $      3.6    $     13.6      19%   26%    20%   $     80.2

                                                    TPC: $ 164.3           $    63.5     $ 227.8       $     46.9    $    22.7     $     69.6      29%   36%    31%   $    297.4
  Notes:
  WBS 2.0 - Base estimate quality is good and contingency may be more than adequate and should be looked at.
  WBS 2.1 & CA - For this design the cost estimate and contingency are fine.
  WBS 2.2 - Should be updated for latest vendor quote Contingency should be recalculated.
  WBS 2.3 - Based on vendor quotes but based on sole source vendor.
  WBS 2.4 - Majority based on vendor quotes; estimate in good shape. 32 cell die is still in estimate.
  WBS 2.5 - Believe the design, R&D and Production are well in hand and well costed.
  WBS 2.6 - APD costs uncertain but covered by contingency.
  WBS 2.7 - Fine
  WBS 2.8 & 2.9 - Base estimate for labor may be on the edge. Early design stage for equipment and tooling large overall contingency is appropriate.
  WBS 2.10 - No cost for consultants and M&S is inadequate. Change the labor contingency to 10% plus cost for an expediter.
  No BOEs for the R&D except for ANU subproject.




                                                                                Director’s CD-2/3a Review of the NOvA Project
                                                                                                June 4-6, 2007
Page 56 of 78
Issued July 5, 2007

                                         Appendix B



                                         Charge
                for the Director’s CD-2/3a Review of the NOvA Project
                                    June 4 – 6, 2007

This charge is for the Committee to conduct a Director’s CD-2/3a Review of the
proposed NOvA project at Fermilab. The review is to assure that all the requirements will
be met for DOE to approve CD-2/3a. The DOE CD-2/3a review is currently scheduled
for July 17-19, 2007.

The purpose of the NOvA project is to fabricate the NOvA near and far detectors and to
provide a detector hall for the far detector, as well as upgrade the Fermilab Recycler and
Main Injector accelerators and the NuMI beamline. The ensemble will permit the
experimenters to study neutrino oscillations, in particular, to search for the oscillation of
muon-type neutrinos to electron-type neutrinos. If these oscillations can be observed
then the experimenters may be able to determine the mass-ordering of the neutrinos and
to observe Charge Parity (CP) violation in the neutrino sector. Determination of the
mass-ordering is a unique contribution made possible by NOvA’s very long baseline.

CD-2 is approval of the Performance Baseline. The Performance Baseline is developed
based on a design document (Preliminary Design or a Technical Design Report), a well-
defined and documented scope, a resource-loaded detailed schedule, a definitive cost
estimate, defined Key Performance Parameters and some additional project management
documents. Approval of CD-2 authorizes submission of a budget request for the Total
Project Cost (TPC) and detailed engineering design.

CD-3a is approval to start limited Construction. NOvA is requesting CD-3a for
infrastructure and site preparation work to support the start of building construction and
limited items for the Detector and ANU activities that are either long lead time items or
parts required to start construction of critical items. The design and engineering for these
items should be completed to the degree appropriate to initiate construction as scheduled.
A review of the CD-3a items should be performed to assure that all environmental, safety
and security criteria are met. DOE CD-3a approval provides authorization to complete
procurement and construction of the specified work.

The technical part of the review should focus on the designs for the detector and building
as well as the upgrades to the accelerator and NuMI. Respond as to whether the designs
meet the technical specifications and whether the designs are sound. The cost and
schedule baselines are based on a detailed WBS – Work Breakdown Structure, WBS
Dictionary, BoE – Basis of Estimate documentation, risk and contingency analyses, RLS
– Resource Loaded Schedule, and time phased funding and cost profiles. The committee
is asked to review each of these items, for quality, completeness, and accuracy. The
committee is also asked to review and assess the quality of and comment on the
additional formal project management documentation provided in support of CD-2/3a.
Issue July 5, 2007


DOE’s guidance to NOvA is to not exceed a Total Project Cost (TPC) of $260M. Based
on the scope of work presented during the review, the committee is to assess whether the
project can be built within the guidance. If it is determined that the work scope as
presently defined cannot be completed within the guidance, then the Far Detector mass
will be the relevant scope parameter.

As part of this assessment the questions listed in Attachment 1 of this charge should be
addressed.      Additionally the review committee is to review and comment on the
Project’s response and actions taken on the recommendations from the Director’s CD-1
Review of NOvA on February 28 - March 2, 2006 and from the DOE CD-1 Review
conducted April 4-6, 2006. The review committee is to also review and comment on the
Project’s response and actions taken on the relevant ANU related recommendations from
the Director’s Preliminary Review of the Super NuMI (SNuMI) Plan conducted on
November 14-16, 2006. Constructive comments on presentation content, format, and
style are also requested.

Finally, the committee should present findings, comments, and conclusions at a closeout
meeting with NOvA’s and Fermilab’s management and provide a written report soon
after the review.




                        Director’s CD-2/3a Review of the NOvA Project
                                        June 4-6, 2007
Page 58 of 78
                                                                        Issued July 5, 2007


        Charge for the Director’s CD-2/3a Review of the MINERvA Project
                                   Attachment 1

Technical
    Are the technical specifications clearly stated and documented?

      Can the design be built? Does the design meet the technical specifications? Is it a
       reasonable design?

      Does the baseline design meet the project’s objectives (mission need)?

Cost
      Is the Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) appropriate for the project scope?

      Do the cost estimates for each WBS (or cost) element have a sound documented
       basis and are they reasonable?

      Does an obligation profile exist? How does it compare with the funding guidance?

Schedule
    Is the schedule well developed and appropriately structured by specifying
      relationships, predecessors, successors, critical path, resource loaded, etc?

      Are the durations for the activities and overall schedule reasonable and achievable
       with the assumed resources?

      Does the schedule contain appropriate levels of milestones, sufficient quantity of
       milestones for tracking progress and do they appear to be achievable?

      Does the schedule include activities for design reviews, which include assessment
       of the designs readiness for procuring prototypes, preproduction and production
       materials?

Management
   Is there an appropriate management organizational structure in place to
     accomplish the design and construction?

      Is the organization structure well documented, responsibilities defined and
       appropriate for the scope of work?

      Are there adequate staffing resources available or planned for this effort?

      Is there a funding plan available or proposed to meet the resource requirements to
       realize the project?




                        Director’s CD-2/3a Review of the NOvA Project
                                        June 4-6, 2007
                                                                                Page 59 of 78
Issue July 5, 2007


        Has a Risk Plan been developed, risks identified, risks analyzed, risk responses
         planned/implemented, risk monitoring/control process established and do they
         seem appropriate?

Procurement
    Have the critical procurements been identified and are they included in the
      schedule with adequate lead time built in?

        Have critical make vs. buy decisions been evaluated in conjunction with the scope
         and is that reflected in the baseline cost estimate, schedule and technical risk
         plan?

        Are the Project designs final and procurement packages prepared to the degree
         appropriate to order materials and initiate construction as scheduled?




                         Director’s CD-2/3a Review of the NOvA Project
                                         June 4-6, 2007
Page 60 of 78
                                                                     Issued July 5, 2007

                                       Appendix C



                                       Agenda
             for the Director’s CD-2/3a Review of the NOvA Project
                                 June 4 – 6, 2007


Monday, June 4, 2007
8:00 – 8:45 AM       45    Executive Session (Comitium, WH2SE)         Ed Temple
9:00 – 9:10 AM       10    Welcome and Laboratory Overview             Hugh
                           (Hornets Nest - WH8X, Overflow in           Montgomery
                           Racetrack – WH7X)
9:10 – 9:55 AM       45    Project Overview                            John Cooper
9:55 – 10:15 AM      20    Project Cost Drivers                        Ron Ray
10:15 – 10:45 AM     30    Accelerator and NuMI Upgrades               Nancy Grossman
10:45 – 11:00 AM     15    BREAK (Outside Hornets Nest -
                           WH8X)
11:00 – 11:30 AM     30    Site and Building                           Steve Dixon
11:30 – 11:50 AM     20    Scintillator                                Stuart Mufson
11:50 – 12:00 PM     10    Fiber                                       Carl Bromberg
12:00 – 12:20 PM     20    PVC and Extrusions                          Rich Talaga
12:20 – 1:20 PM      60    LUNCH (WH2 Crossover)
1:20 – 1:40 PM       20    Extrusion Modules                           Ken Heller
1:40 – 2:05 PM       25    Electronics and DAQ                         Leon Mualem
2:05 – 2:40 PM       35    Near/Far Detector Assembly                  Dave Ayres
2:40 – 2:55 PM       15    NOvA Science & Detector Performance         Mark Messier or
                                                                       Gary Feldman
2:55 – 3:10 PM       15    BREAK (Outside Hornets Nest -
                           WH8X)
3:10 – 4:25 PM       75    BREAKOUT SESSIONS
                           1) Site and Building (Confessional –        Steve Dixon*
                           WH5NE)
                           2) Commodities - Scintillator, Fiber,       Rich Talaga*
                           PVC (Snake Pit – WH2NE)
                           3) Far and Near Detector Assembly (The      Dave Ayres*
                           Req. Room – WH4NW)
                           4) Electronics and DAQ (Hornets Nest -      Leon Mualem*
                           WH8X)
                           5) Extrusion Module Production (Black       Ken Heller*
                           Hole – WH2NW)
                           6) Accelerator and NuMI Upgrades            Nancy Grossman*
                           (Racetrack – WH7X )
4:30 – 6:30 PM             Executive Session (Comitium, WH2SE)



                     Director’s CD-2/3a Review of the NOvA Project
                                     June 4-6, 2007
                                                                             Page 61 of 78
Issue July 5, 2007




Tuesday, June 5, 2007
8:00 – 8:30 AM                Cost and Schedule Executive Session         Ed Temple
                              (Comitium, WH2SE)
8:30 – 8:45 AM                Cost     and     Schedule    Methodology    Bill Freeman
                              (Comitium, WH2SE)
8:45 – 10:45 AM               BREAKOUT SESSIONS
                              1) Site and Building (Confessional –        Steve Dixon*
                              WH5NE)
                              2) Commodities - Scintillator, Fiber, PVC   Rich Talaga*
                              (Snake Pit – WH2NE)
                              3) Far and Near Detector Assembly (The      Dave Ayres*
                              Req. Room – WH4NW)
                              4) Electronics and DAQ (Hornets Nest -      Leon Mualem*
                              WH8X)
                              5) Extrusion Module Production (Black       Ken Heller*
                              Hole – WH2NW)
                              6) Accelerator and NuMI Upgrades            Elaine
                              (Racetrack – WH7X )                         McCluskey*
                              7) Cost,      Schedule and Management       John Cooper*
                              (Comitium, WH2SE)
10:45 – 11:00AM               BREAK (Outside Comitium, WH2SE)
11:00 – 12:45 PM              BREAKOUT SESSIONS – Continued
                              (Same breakouts and locations as for the
                              8:45 – 10:45 AM sessions)
12:45 – 1:45 PM               LUNCH (WH2 Crossover)
1:45 – 2:45 PM                NOvA Respond to Committee Questions
                              from 1st Day (Comitium, WH2SE)
2:45 – 6:30 PM                Executive Session and Report Writing
                              (Comitium, WH2SE) Breaks taken as
                              necessary.

Wednesday, Jun. 06

8:00 – 9:30 PM              Subcommittee Working Sessions and
                            Report Writing
10:00 – 2:00 PM             Committee Closeout Dry Run with working
                            lunch (Comitium, WH2SE) Breaks taken as
                            necessary.
2:00 PM                     Closeout ((Hornets Nest - WH8X,
                            Overflow in Racetrack – WH7X)
* Notes Breakout Session Lead




                        Director’s CD-2/3a Review of the NOvA Project
                                        June 4-6, 2007
Page 62 of 78
                                                                              Issued July 5, 2007

                                                Appendix D
                   Report Outline and Reviewer Writing Assignments
                     for the Director’s CD-2/3a Review of the NOvA Project
                                         June 4 – 6, 2007

Executive Summary                                                                Ed Temple
1.0 Introduction                                                                 Dean Hoffer
2.0 Science                                                                      Heidi Schellman,
                                                                                 and All
3.0 Site and Building (WBS 1/2.1)                                                Karen Hellman,
                                                                                 Jeff Sims
4.0 Commodities – Scintillator/Fiber/PVC (WBS 1/2.2, 1/2.3 & 1/2.4)              Linda Stutte,
                                                                                 Joe Ingraffia
5.0 Extrusion Module Production (WBS 1/2.5)                                      Alan Bross,
                                                                                 Heidi Schellman
6.0 Electronics, Trigger DAQ (WBS 1/2.6 & 1/2.7)                                 Jonathan Lewis,
                                                                                 Eric James
7.0 Far and Near Detector Assembly (WBS 1/2.8 & 2.9)                             Richard Boyce,
                                                                                 Pat Hurh
                                                                                 Charlie Cooper
8.0 Accelerator Upgrades (WBS 1/2.0.1, 1/2.0.2)                                  Thomas Roser,
                                                                                 Rod Gerig
9.0 NuMI Beamline Upgrades (WBS 1/2.0.3, 1.0.4)                                  Phil Martin,
   a) Beamline / Target Modifications                                            Sayed Rokni
   b) Shielding
10.0 Cost and Schedule                                                           Bill Boroski,
                                                                                 Dean Hoffer
11.0 Project Management (WBS 1.9 & 2.10)                                         Mike Lindgren,
                                                                                 Ed Temple
12.0 Charge Questions
TECHNICAL
12.1 Are the technical specifications clearly stated and documented?        Heidi Schellman,
                                                                            Tom Roser
12.2 Can the design be built? Does the design meet the technical Heidi Schellman,
specifications? Is it a reasonable design?                                  Tom Roser
12.3 Does the baseline design meet the project’s objectives (mission need)? Heidi Schellman,
                                                                            Tom Roser
COST
12.4 Is the Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) appropriate for the project Bill Boroski,
scope?                                                                      Dean Hoffer
12.5 Do the cost estimates for each WBS (or cost) element have a sound
documented basis and are they reasonable?
12.6 Does an obligation profile exist? How does it compare with the funding
guidance?
SCHEDULE
                              Director’s CD-2/3a Review of the NOvA Project
                                              June 4-6, 2007
                                                                                      Page 63 of 78
      Issue July 5, 2007


12.7 Is the schedule well developed and appropriately structured by                Dean Hoffer,
specifying relationships, predecessors, successors, critical path, resource        Bill Boroski
loaded, etc?
12.8 Are the durations for the activities and overall schedule reasonable and
achievable with the assumed resources?
12.9 Does the schedule contain appropriate levels of milestones, sufficient
quantity of milestones for tracking progress and do they appear to be
achievable?
12.10 Does the schedule include activities for design reviews, which include
assessment of the designs readiness for procuring prototypes, preproduction
and production materials?
MANAGEMENT
12.11 Is there an appropriate management organizational structure in place to      Mike Lindgren,
accomplish the design and construction?                                            Bill Boroski
12.12 Is the organization structure well documented, responsibilities defined
and appropriate for the scope of work?
12.13 Are there adequate staffing resources available or planned for this
effort?
12.14 Is there a funding plan available or proposed to meet the resource
requirements to realize the project?
12.15 Has a Risk Plan been developed, risks identified, risks analyzed, risk
responses planned/implemented, risk monitoring/control process established
and do they seem appropriate?
PROCUREMENT
12.16 Have the critical procurements been identified and are they included in      Joe Ingraffia,
the schedule with adequate lead time built in?                                     Mike Lindgren
12.17 Have critical make vs. buy decisions been evaluated in conjunction           Joe Ingraffia,
with the scope and is that reflected in the baseline cost estimate, schedule and   Mike Lindgren
technical risk plan?
12.18 Are the Project designs final and procurement packages prepared to the       Joe Ingraffia,
degree appropriate to order materials and initiate construction as scheduled?      Mike Lindgren
       Note underlined names are the primary writer.




                               Director’s CD-2/3a Review of the NOvA Project
                                               June 4-6, 2007
      Page 64 of 78
                                                                            Issued July 5, 2007

                                              Appendix E

                     Reviewer Assignments for Breakout Sessions
                    for the Director’s CD-2/3a Review of the NOvA Project
                                        June 4 – 6, 2007

1) Site and Building (Confessional, WH5NE)                                     Karen Hellman,
                                                                               Jeff Sims
2) Commodities – Scintillator/Fiber/PVC (Snake Pit – WH2NE)                    Joe Ingraffia,
                                                                               Linda Stutte
3) Far and Near Detector Assembly (The Req. Room – WH4NW)                      Richard Boyce,
                                                                               Charlie Cooper,
                                                                               Pat Hurh
4) Electronics and DAQ (Hornets Nest - WH8)                                    Jonathan Lewis,
                                                                               Eric James
5) Extrusion Module Production (Black Hole – WH2NW)                            Alan Bross,
                                                                               Heidi Schellman
6) Accelerator and NuMI Beamline Upgrades (Racetrack – WH7X)                   Rod Gerig,
                                                                               Phil Martin,
                                                                               Sayed Rokni,
                                                                               Thomas Roser
7), Cost, Schedule and Management (Comitium, WH2SE)                            Bill Boroski,
                                                                               Mike Lindgren,
                                                                               Dean Hoffer,
                                                                               Ed Temple




                            Director’s CD-2/3a Review of the NOvA Project
                                            June 4-6, 2007
                                                                                    Page 65 of 78
Issue July 5, 2007

                                              Appendix F
                            Reviewers’ Contact Information
                 for the Director’s CD-2/3a Review of the NOvA Project
                                     June 4 – 6, 2007

          Bill Boroski                                Richard Boyce
          Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory       Stanford Linear Accelerator Center
          M.S. 127                                    M.S. 103
          P.O. Box 500                                2575 Sand Hill Road
          Batavia, IL. 60510                          Menlo Park, CA 94025
          630-840-4344                                650-926-3441
          boroski@fnal.gov                            boyce@SLAC.Stanford.edu

          Alan Bross                                  Charlie Cooper
          Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory       Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory
          M.S. 231                                    M.S. 316
          P.O. Box 500                                P.O. Box 500
          Batavia, IL. 60510                          Batavia, IL. 60510
          630-840-4880                                630-840-2538
          bross@fnal.gov                              ccooper@fnal.gov

          Rod Gerig                                   Karen Hellman
          Argonne National Laboratory                 Argonne National Laboratory
          9700 S. Cass Avenue                         9700 S. Cass Avenue
          Argonne, IL 60439                           Argonne, IL 60439
          630-252-5710                                630-252-7808
          rod@aps.anl.gov                             khellman@anl.gov

          Dean Hoffer                                 Pat Hurh
          Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory       Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory
          M.S. 200                                    MS 340
          P.O. Box 500                                P.O. Box 500
          Batavia, IL. 60510                          Batavia, IL. 60510
          630-840-8898                                630-840-2814
          dhoffer@fnal.gov                            hurh@fnal.gov

          Joe Ingraffia                               Eric James
          Argonne National Laboratory                 Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory
          9700 S. Cass Avenue                         M.S. 318
          Argonne, IL 60439                           P.O. Box 500
          630-252-3640                                Batavia, IL. 60510
          jingraffia@anl.gov                          630-840-8610
                                                      jameseb@fnal.gov

          Jonathan Lewis                              Michael Lindgren
          Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory       Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory
          M.S. 318                                    M.S. 318
          P.O. Box 500                                P.O. Box 500
          Batavia, IL. 60510                          Batavia, IL. 60510
          630-840-3779                                630-840-8409
          jdl@fnal.gov                                mlindgre@fnal.gov




                            Director’s CD-2/3a Review of the NOvA Project
                                            June 4-6, 2007
Page 66 of 78
                                                                        Issued July 5, 2007

Philip Martin                               Sayed Rokni
Consultant                                  Stanford Linear Accelerator Center
623 Antler Ridge Rd                         M.S. 48
Sequim WA 98382                             2575 Sand Hill Road
360-582-9445                                Menlo Park, CA 94025
ptmartin@olypen.com                         650-926-3544
                                            rokni@SLAC.Stanford.edu

Thomas Roser                                Heidi Schellman
Brookhaven National Laboratory              Northwestern University
P.O. Box 5000                               WCAS Physics and Astronomy EV4020
Upton, NY 11973                             1918 Sheridan Rd
631-344-7084                                Evanston, IL. 60208
roser@bnl.gov                               847-491-7561
                                            h-schellman@northwestern.edu

Jeff Sims                                   Linda Stutte
Argonne National Laboratory                 Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory
9700 S. Cass Avenue                         M.S. 357
Argonne, IL 60439                           P.O. Box 500
630-252-3515                                Batavia, IL. 60510
jsims@anl.gov                               630-840-3108
                                            stutte@fnal.gov

Ed Temple (Chair)                           Jeffrey Cotton (Observer)
Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory       EG&G at Fermi National Accelerator
M.S. 200                                    Laboratory
P.O. Box 500                                M.S. 210
Batavia, IL. 60510                          P.O. Box 500
630-840-5242                                Batavia, IL. 60510
etemple@fnal.gov                            630-840-2327
                                            cotton@fnal.gov




                  Director’s CD-2/3a Review of the NOvA Project
                                  June 4-6, 2007
                                                                                    Page 67 of 78
Issue July 5, 2007

                                                    Appendix G

                                             Participant List
                  for the Director’s CD-2/3a Review of the NOvA Project
                                      June 4 – 6, 2007

                Role                         Last Name           First Name               Institution
 Directorate                           Appel                 Jeff              Fermilab/Directorate
                                       Holmes                Steve             Fermilab/Directorate
                                       Montgomery            Hugh              Fermilab/Directorate
 DOE                                   Procario              Mike              DOE
                                       Carolan               Pepin             DOE SO
                                       Webster               Steve             DOE SO
 NOvA ANU Project EE                   Ducar                 Robert            Fermilab
 NOvA ANU Project ME                   Reilly                Robert            Fermilab
 NOvA ANU Safety Coordinator           Andrews               Michael           Fermilab
 NOvA Executive Board Member           Harris                Debbie            Fermilab
 NOvA Level 3 Managers                 Bernstein             Bob               Fermilab
                                       Bower                 Chuck             Indiana University
                                       Chase                 Tom               University of Minnesota
                                       Coan                  Tom               Southern Methodist Univ.
                                       Cronin-Hennessy       Dan               University of Minnesota
                                       Derwent               Paul              Fermilab
                                       Grozis                Chuck             Fermilab
                                       Grudzinski            Jim               Argonne
                                       Guarino               Vic               Argonne
                                       Guglielmo             Gerry             Fermilab
                                       Kephart               Karen             Fermilab
                                       Kourbannis            Ioanis            Fermilab
                                       Marshak               Marvin            University of Minnesota
                                       Martens               Mike              Fermilab
                                       Miller                Bil               University of Minnesota
                                       Pavlicek              Vince             Fermilab
                                       Peterson              Earl              University of Minnesota
                                       Plunkett              Rob               Fermilab
                                       Poling                Ron               University of Minnesota
                                       Rusack                Roger             University of Minnesota
                                       Votava                Margaret          Fermilab
                                       Zwaska                Robert            Fermilab
 NOvA Level 4 Managers                 Ader                  Christine         Fermilab
                                       Broemmelsiek          Daniel            Fermilab
                                       Capista               David             Fermilab
                                       Childress             Sam               Fermilab
                                       Dey                   Joseph            Fermilab
                                       Hu                    Martin            Fermilab
                                       Hylen                 Jim               Fermilab
                                       Jensen                Chris             Fermilab
                                       Johnson               David             Fermilab
                                       Kasper                Peter             Fermilab
                                       Kobilarcik            Thomas            Fermilab

                               Director’s CD-2/3a Review of the NOvA Project
                                               June 4-6, 2007
Page 68 of 78
                                                                                   Issued July 5, 2007

                Role                 Last Name        First Name                  Institution
                               Tariq                 Salman            Fermilab
                               Vaziri                Kamran            Fermilab
                               Williams              Karlton           Fermilab
NOvA Project Office            Domann                Ken               Fermilab
                               Ferguson              Harry             Fermilab
                               Freeman               Bill              Fermilab
                               Grossman              Nancy             Fermilab
                               McCluskey             Elaine            Fermilab
                               Oliver                John              Harvard
                               Pasek                 Suzanne           Fermilab
                               Pla-Dalmau            Anna              Fermilab
                               Pushka                David             Fermilab
                               Schuh                 Keith             Fermilab
                               Wehmann               Alan              Fermilab
NOνA Presenters                Ayres                 Dave              Argonne
                               Bromberg              Carl              Michigan State University
                               Cooper                John              Fermilab
                               Dixon                 Steve             Fermilab
                               Feldman               Gary              Harvard University
                               Heller                Kenneth           University of Minnesota
                               Messier               Mark              Indiana University
                               Mualem                Leon              Caltech
                               Mufson                Stuart            Indiana University
                               Ray                   Ronald            Fermilab
                               Talaga                Richard           Argonne
Observer                       Cotton                Jeffrey           EG&G at Fermilab
Other Participants             Baller                Bruce             Fermilab
                               Bock                  Greg              Fermilab
                               Bogert                Dixon             Fermilab
                               Cibic                 Bob               Fermilab
                               Dixon                 Roger             Fermilab
                               Harding               Dave              Fermilab
                               Kiemschies            Oliver            Fermilab
                               Lee                   Ang               Fermilab
                               Rameika               Gina              Fermilab
                               Strait                Jim               Fermilab
                               Tinsley               Dave              Fermilab
                               Wildman               David             Fermilab
                               Xiao                  Meiqin            Fermilab
Reviewers                      Boroski               Bill              Fermilab
                               Boyce                 Richard           SLAC
                               Bross                 Alan              Fermilab
                               Cooper                Charlie           Fermilab
                               Gerig                 Rod               Argonne
                               Hellman               Karen             Argonne
                               Hoffer                Dean              Fermilab
                               Hurh                  Pat               Fermilab
                               Ingraffia             Joe               Argonne
                               James                 Eric              Fermilab
                               Lewis                 Jonathan          Fermilab


                       Director’s CD-2/3a Review of the NOvA Project
                                       June 4-6, 2007
                                                                                                 Page 69 of 78
Issue July 5, 2007

                Role               Last Name          First Name                  Institution
                               Lindgren              Mike              Fermilab
                               Martin                Phil              Consultant
                               Rokni                 Sayed             SLAC
                               Roser                 Thomas            Brookhaven
                               Schellman             Heidi             Northwestern
                               Sims                  Jeffrey           Argonne
                               Stutte                Linda             Fermilab
                               Temple                Ed                Fermilab




                       Director’s CD-2/3a Review of the NOvA Project
                                       June 4-6, 2007
Page 70 of 78
                                                                             Issued July 5, 2007

                                              Appendix H

                               Table of Recommendations
                   for the Director’s CD-2/3a Review of the NOvA Project
                                       June 4 – 6, 2007


                                                               Assigned     Status/
#                   Recommendation                                                            Date
                                                                  To        Action
    2.0 Science
1   The mass and flux estimates in the TDR need to be
    made consistent.
2   The continued shrinkage of the NOvA far
    detector is an area of concern. The collaboration
    needs to come up with a consistent plan which
    allows the project to reconcile the cost guidance
    with maximal physics sensitivity.
    3.0 Site and Building (WBS 1/2.1)
3   It is recommended that the project develop a
    responsibility matrix that exhibits the various
    requirements and responsibilities of the individual
    team members related to the construction and
    oversight of the road, site and facility.
4   It is important to further develop the schedule
    incorporating the activities leading to an approval
    of CD-3a.
    4.0 Commodities – Scintillator/Fiber/PVC
    (WBS 1/2.2, 1/2.3 & 1/2.4)
5   Scrub the costs and schedules in Open Plan.
6   Develop a standard procurement milestone plan to
    use across the commodities.
7   Use the current pricing estimate available for the
    mineral oil and recalculate the contingency.
    5.0 Extrusion Module Production (WBS1/2..5)
8   Fully automate glue application to the end seal
    extrusion
9   Reconsider the location of Factory 1 in the
    Fermilab Wide-Band Hall. Consider leasing a
    facility with enough space to incorporate both
    Factory 1 production activities and the needs for
    interim storage.




                            Director’s CD-2/3a Review of the NOvA Project
                                            June 4-6, 2007
                                                                                      Page 71 of 78
     Issue July 5, 2007


                                                                 Assigned     Status/
#                    Recommendation                                                     Date
                                                                    To        Action
10   Consider improving the fixturing for cutting the 32
     cell assemblies to length. Even with an edge
     guide, cutting by hand with a circular saw can still
     lead to an irregular edge. This could lead to
     sealing problems. The current procedure does
     raise some safety concerns.
11   Prototype and test as soon as possible the baseline
     method (packed desiccant) for insuring that the
     sealed gas volume surrounding the APD (interface
     region between the APD module and the PVC
     module optical connector) remains dry and
     prevents any possibility of condensation on the
     APD or fiber surfaces. Some thought should be
     given as to how a dry N2 purge could be added if
     the desiccant concept does not work well enough.
12   The team should make use of the evolving 3D
     model of the detector to better evaluate if there
     will be an interference between vertical and
     horizontal components in some parts of the
     detector.
13   We recommend that a purchasing expediter be
     added to the NOvA Project Office Staff at the
     appropriate time.
14   Increase contingency on labor for Factory 1 to
     50%
15   Given the potential problems that might occur if
     the scintillator comes in contact with the Devcon
     PlasticWelder, we recommend that the team
     perform additional tests (hydrostatic) on the barrier
     seal to get an estimate on the expected volume of
     scintillator that might come in contact with the
     Devcon adhesive.
     6.0 Electronics, Trigger DAQ (WBS 1/2..6
     &1/2..7)
16   Complete and document a full risk analysis for the
     APDs. The risk analysis should include the
     possible mitigations for higher dark current such as
     lower operating temperature or changes to FEB
     parameters to enable NOvA to achieve the 10:1
     noise specification.




                              Director’s CD-2/3a Review of the NOvA Project
                                              June 4-6, 2007
     Page 72 of 78
                                                                               Issued July 5, 2007


                                                                 Assigned     Status/
#                    Recommendation                                                             Date
                                                                    To        Action
17   A risk analysis is needed for the FEB and DCM.
     Because the production is scheduled to be late in
     the project, parts may become obsolete. It is
     necessary to consider the relative merits of
     purchasing components early against the
     possibility of needing to redesign the boards.
18   A system integration test including fully
     functioning APD, TEC and FEB is necessary to
     demonstrate the performance of the APD prior to
     making the purchase of the requested CD-3a items.
19   The WBS needs scrubbed to reflect the updated
     plan for APD assembly:
             o Remove references to carrier board
                 manufacture
             o Unify nomenclature for “housing”,
                 “module”, etc.
             o Include module assembly either as a
                 separate step or with testing at CalTech
                 and Minnesota.
20   Include reviews prior to purchase of production
     quantities. The approval of the designs and quote
     packages should be milestones for the level 3
     subprojects.
21   The WBS should be scrubbed to have proper
     dependencies. For example, the vertical slice tests
     should depend on completion of testing of
     included devices with a review to follow.
22   The acquisition schedule for the APDs needs to be
     clarified. The vertical slice test was reported to be
     delayed. The schedule shows the APD pilot
     production for use on the IPND to be occurring
     8/07 through 1/08. Given the uncertainty in APD
     qualification    and     the     negotiations    with
     Hamamatsu, there is some danger that the APDs
     become a critical path item for an IPND run
     beginning in 10/08.
     7.0 Far and Near Detector Assembly
     (WBS1/2..8 & 1/2.9)




                              Director’s CD-2/3a Review of the NOvA Project
                                              June 4-6, 2007
                                                                                        Page 73 of 78
     Issue July 5, 2007


                                                                 Assigned     Status/
#                    Recommendation                                                     Date
                                                                    To        Action
23   Perform a careful and detailed study of the
     detector assembly program with consideration
     given to programmatic impacts from normal
     equipment maintenance and worker safety
     resulting from the project’s ISM plan. Included in
     this study should be a review of schedule impact
     due to equipment failure/repair as this will cause
     an alteration to the work planning process.
     Recommend increasing the number of assembly
     staff at the Far Detector area to allow for on going
     worker training while maintaining a full
     production capability. This can be accomplished
     without cost increase by reduction of the 100%
     labor contingency.
     Near Detector& IPND Assembly
24   Reexamine the scintillator filling equipment and
     excavation time estimates.
25   Include more information in the BoE quotes
     including specific references.
26   “Scrub” the M&S and Labor contingency
     estimates.
     Far Detector Assembly
27   Set the PVC formulation as soon as possible if it is
     not already set at NOvA formulation 27.
28   Risk assessment needs to be done on all major unit
     operations.
29   Implement a system that triggers the level of
     review needed for each unit operation and start on
     major items listed in comments above.
30   The content in the BoE’s needs to be improved to
     include the sources that the financial estimates
     come from and match them to WBS.
     Far Detector Structure




                              Director’s CD-2/3a Review of the NOvA Project
                                              June 4-6, 2007
     Page 74 of 78
                                                                               Issued July 5, 2007


                                                                 Assigned     Status/
#                    Recommendation                                                             Date
                                                                    To        Action
31   Continue with current course of FEA analysis and
     prototype/creep testing to explore various loading
     conditions, sensitivities, and verification of
     analysis. This includes the close to full height 2
     block test with water. The use of water is deemed
     satisfactory for these structural tests. Structural
     creep tests require long periods of data collection
     and the delay of starting such a test from
     contending with the ES&H and handling issues of
     large quantities of liquid scintillator should be
     avoided. Chemical interactions between PVC and
     the scintillator oil ingredients can be done in
     smaller stand-alone tests. If interactions are noted,
     then long term tests can be planned and performed
     at that time.
32   Investigate ways to accelerate block-to-block
     interaction tests that depend on creep and/or creep
     induced buckling (elevated temperature).
33   Plan a rigorous technical review (or series of
     reviews) of the base-line structure design utilizing
     external experts as soon as reasonably possible.
     This should include experts in the fields of plastic
     creep behavior, non-linear FEA, and buckling.
     Far Detector Assembly Equipment (incl.
     scintillator filling)
34   Continue to advance design and prototyping of key
     assembly equipment such that ergonomic and
     ES&H concerns can be addressed early in the
     design cycle.
     Cost, Schedule, Resources, & Risk Management
     - Far Detector
35   Provide tie-ins between BoE and technical
     documents.
36   Increase resolution of BoE’s (by writing more
     BoE’s at a lower level or showing breakdown of
     estimates within those BoE’s written to cover
     multiple WBS activities; in the latter case, clearly
     indicate on the multiple activity BoE’s which
     activities or portions of activities are included).
37   Continue with planned assembly tests and studies
     (time-motion) to provide basis of estimate for
     schedules.



                              Director’s CD-2/3a Review of the NOvA Project
                                              June 4-6, 2007
                                                                                        Page 75 of 78
     Issue July 5, 2007


                                                                 Assigned     Status/
#                     Recommendation                                                    Date
                                                                    To        Action
38   Perform risk analysis and “what-if” analysis to
     assess schedule and cost impact from downtime of
     key assembly equipment (glue dispenser, vacuum
     lifters, cranes, block pivoter, scintillation filling
     equipment, etc.)
39   Scrub the BoE’s and RLS to attain consistency.
40   Write BoE’s for R&D activities.
     8.0 Accelerator Upgrades (WBS 1/2..0.1 &
     1/2.0.2
41   Include complete system integration testing in the
     scope of the project.
42   Complete the conceptual design as soon as
     possible and then review the contingencies used in
     the engineering designs.
43   Consider installing the prototype gap cleaner or the
     final magnet built early in the MI for early testing
     and use by NuMI. The gap cleaner can later be
     moved to RR.
44   Consider minimizing beam losses in the Recycler
     as part of the design efforts.
     9.0 NuMI Beamline Upgrades (WBS 1/2..0)
     9.1 Beamline/Target Modifications
45   Pursue the use of continuous cast salvage steel for
     the shielding reconfiguration. Also see if some or
     all of the steel might be available on site at
     minimal cost.
     9.2 Shielding
46   Prepare a status report on the issue of tritium in the
     surface water, and discuss why this issue does not
     pose a risk to the project when beam power to
     NuMI is increased.
     10.0 Cost
47   Complete a thorough and rigorous review of the
     newly revised cost estimate to verify the accuracy
     and completeness of the June 2007 estimate prior
     to baseline consideration.

48   Review the cost basis for each element in the WBS
     to ensure that 1) BoE documents are correctly
     matched with WBS line items; and 2) each BoE
     contains the appropriate and necessary information
     to support the cost estimate.



                              Director’s CD-2/3a Review of the NOvA Project
                                              June 4-6, 2007
     Page 76 of 78
                                                                              Issued July 5, 2007


                                                                Assigned     Status/
#                    Recommendation                                                            Date
                                                                   To        Action
49   Verify that peer and independent design reviews
     are incorporated into the WBS at the appropriate
     level and properly costed.
50   Review the level of contingency assigned to WBS
     line items by Level 2 managers to ensure that
     labor, M&S and schedule contingency rules are
     being applied uniformly across the project.
51   Update the price projection model for mineral oil,
     using May 2007 vendor cost data of $3.33/gallon.
52   Perform and document a cost-benefit analysis to
     determine the potential cost savings of combining
     PVC module assembly production into a single
     factory site.
     11.0 Schedule (To be completed prior to DOE
     CD-2/3a Review)
53   The schedule is to be scrubbed to reduce cost,
     including modifying the detector size, in order to
     meet the OMB guidance not to exceed a TPC of
     $260M.
54   To insure schedule quality, the schedule is to be
     scrubbed for the items listed in the first Comment
     of the schedule section (11) of this report.
55   Complete the detailed bottom-up risk assessment
     for the entire project, which includes mitigation
     plans. Incorporate the mitigation activities in the
     cost and schedule where appropriate.
56   Assess at which level(s) in the WBS the BoEs
     should be generated. Complete all the BoE’s for
     the project. Compare the content of the BoEs with
     the data in the schedule and insure they match
     (Similar Recommendation issued from the
     Director’s CD-1 Review of NOvA).
57   Generate and maintain a one-page master schedule
     with the critical path.
     12.0 Project Management (WBS 1/2..0.1 &
     1/2.0.2
58   It is important to have a draft MOU begun between
     Fermilab and the University of Minnesota to
     supplement the CA.
59   Prepare draft MOU’s and SOW’s for institutions
     planning on doing work for the project so that
     responsibilities and labor resources commitments
     are clearly understood.


                             Director’s CD-2/3a Review of the NOvA Project
                                             June 4-6, 2007
                                                                                       Page 77 of 78
     Issue July 5, 2007


                                                                Assigned     Status/
#                    Recommendation                                                    Date
                                                                   To        Action
60   Finalize both PEP and PMP prior to a baseline
     review.
61   There needs to be detailed balance of funding and
     cost by FY by the baseline review in the project
     management documentation.
62   The project office needs to work with the L2
     managers to complete the implementation of the
     Risk Management Plan.
63   Complete the TDR and scrub all CD-2 related
     documentation to reflect the current project status
     and scope.
64   Consider adding an expediter to the Project office.
65   Include costs in WBS 2.10 for external
     reviewers/consultants, labor contingency, and an
     expediter.
66   Preparation of materials for the baseline review
     should begin early enough that the reviewers have
     adequate time to prepare for the review.




                             Director’s CD-2/3a Review of the NOvA Project
                                             June 4-6, 2007
     Page 78 of 78

				
DOCUMENT INFO